Category: Biblical History
-
Boston Declaration
With the 500 year anniversary of the reformation having just passed and the beginning of the Christmas season upon us, my Sunday School class was discussing what evangelicals had gained (or recovered) and what we have lost with the reformation. A woman in the class asked about a recent article she had read and whether it was the sort of thing we were discussing. I had not seen the article, so I asked her to email a link, and said I would read it and get back to her.
The article was about the Boston Declaration and the simple answer to her question is no, it was not what we are talking about, although Susan Thistlethwaite, the author of the article and a participant in the event, describes it as,In a dramatic press conference at Boston’s famous Old South Church, where many dressed in sackcloth and ashes to call for repentance and change in Christianity in the United States, the presenters were clear that white American Evangelicalism is in a crisis, a crisis of its own making. It has abandoned the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Pretty strong words, even more so since I consider myself an evangelical. Yet, as I read on, I very quickly discovered that they were not really talking about me, nor even Evangelicalism in general. In the end the article was much more instructive about the people making the declaration and their mindset than anything in evangelicalism.
I have a lot of problems with the Boston Declaration, but they can generally be summed up into two main objections. The first is that it is not really a religious declaration, but a political statement dressed up in religious language. When you break it all down, it is not an abandoning of the Gospel, but a rejection of their political agenda, that they find objectionable.
For example, the Boston Declaration has an entire section on what they condemn, and it is basically a pretty standard left wing agenda. The very first item they list is, “We reject the false ideology of empire building and the myth of racial laziness and substance abuse that harms the people of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the US territories.” Really? I have been a Christian for nearly 40 years, and have heard a lot of evangelical sermons on a lot of Sunday mornings and I have never heard a sermon that even addressed “the people of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the US territories,” much less supported any sort of oppression there, except possibly to support relief efforts following a natural disaster. Yet this is the first item in their list.
Now, as many of my past articles have made clear, I am very politically active and write on politics frequently. I do not object to theologians making political statements. I object to theologians claiming you either accept their view of politics or you are abandoning the Gospel. To me this violates the commandment not to take the Lord’s name in vain. I believe the command is an injunction not to use God to justify your own opinions. To say that God demands we care for the poor, is fine. To say, therefore, I believe we should support a particular government programs or policy, is fine. To say that God demands we support a particular government program or policy, and to do otherwise is to abandon the Gospel, crosses the line.
As a conservative evangelical, I do not look at my brothers and sisters on the political left as somehow less Christian, or not following the teachings of Christ. I see them as politically wrong. If I were to do a detailed refutation of the Boston Declaration, however, it would be almost completely political in nature. Thus, while they are supposedly calling me to return to “the Gospel of Jesus Christ” the areas where I am supposedly deficient are political not theological. I have the right concerns and beliefs, I am just not doing things politically the way they think I should.
The second major problem I have is the lack of truth in the statement. Let me be clear here, I am not accusing the signers of lying. What I am saying is that the situation described in the document bears very little relation to the truth. I am sure they believe what they write, which is why I do not believe they are lying, but much of what they attribute to evangelicalism simply is not true.
Their condemnations are painted with a very board brush. For example, they take individual actions of some, which I believe they are very correct to condemn, and then attribute those to all evangelicals. This is, at its core, bigotry. In addition, like most prejudices, things tend to be very simple and black and white, with little room for contributing factors that do not fit the stereotypes. Thus, as Thistlethwaite writes,When we have torch carrying right-wing radicals marching around in Charlottesville, Virginia yelling ‘blood and soil!’ and ‘Jews will not replace us!’ it is time to confront this kind of Nazism with the historical courage of those who confronted the Nazis in the 1930s in Germany.
I agree, and do condemn such things. What I am puzzled about is how Thistlethwaite gets from those “radicals” to evangelicals as a whole?
Rev. Dr. Reggie Williams, another participant at the event, said,These are sinister times, but they are not new. As a black person educated in Evangelical Christian institutions, I am familiar with a Christianity that has a history of ignoring my being, and providing theological justification for my non-being.
True, to their great shame, many southern churches and institutions did fit his description, but the abolitionist movement did not, so his description again attributes to all, something that was only true of some.
Yet, then he added that it was, “new in my lifetime to have such an over embrace of it.” Really? Where in modern evangelicalism is there even a renewal of the despicable teachings of southern churches on race, much less it being now worse than ever. One will probably find such vile teachings in some sections of fundamentalism, but I believe it would be wrong to paint fundamentalism with such a broad brush, much less evangelicalism.
In summary, I find the Boston Declaration fails in its goal, described in article as a “call for repentance and change in Christianity.” After all, as they put it, “We are outraged by the current trends in Evangelicalism and other expressions of Christianity driven by white supremacy, often enacted through white privilege and the normalizing of oppression.” Such language is hardly likely to encourage much dialogue with evangelicals who see no resemblance between their actual beliefs and the false characterizations of them in the Boston Declaration and among its supporters.
Ultimately, the Boston Declaration is more virtue signaling than anything else. In the end they are proclaiming how good they are by what they denounce. In the process they viciously malign many of their brothers and sisters. Frankly, in many respects, the Boston Declaration is just another form of the bigotry, prejudice and oppressing they decry. Perhaps they should read Matthew 7:5.
Elgin Hushbeck, Jr., Engineer, teacher, Christian apologist, and author of Preserving Democracy, What is Wrong with Social Justice?, A Short Critique of Climate Change, Christianity and Secularism, and Evidence for the Bible.
[slideshow_deploy id=’2411′] -
On Patriotism and Revolution
In a recent post here, Dr. David Alan Black wrote, “The humility of Christ doesn’t grant us permission on this Fourth to call out our fellow Christians for feeling patriotic or to harp about a revolution in 1776 that was probably at odds with Paul’s teaching about submission to civil authority in Romans 13.” In a post that I otherwise agreed with, I found myself wondering if my patriotism and attitude toward the American Revolution were wrong?
When I read Dr. Black’s article, I was editing an article in which I had written about why “I believe that humility, dialogue, and a tolerance for those who disagree, working in a framework that stresses unity rather than division are so important,” and it is in this spirit that I offer up what admittedly may be a rationalization on my part, but is a defense of my views on these two questions.
The question of patriotism is for me the easiest. We all are many things. I am a husband, father, manager, engineer, and author, just to name a few, and in the last few years have been blessed to add grandfather to that list. I do not see any reason patriot cannot also be on this list. For me the issue is not so much a matter of being, or not being, a patriot, but where in your list of labels patriot exists, if it exists at all. In my list of identifying labels the first and most important is Christian. In fact, for me, patriot, while it is there, comes much further down the list.
This is important because if patriot comes at the top of the list, then nothing can challenge it, and it becomes my country right or wrong-type of patriotism, a patriotism that, historically, has been so problematic.
My patriotism is also not a matter of reflex, habit, or just because I grew up in America. In fact, today, the cultural norm is the opposite. Today it is much cooler to be a “citizen of the world.” To be a patriot is frequently difficult as the cultural messages are far more likely to stress the flaws and short comings of the country than the good that it has done. Even one of the leading historians read in schools said in an interview that it would have been better if the country had never existed. Not surprisingly then, one of the key political questions, is whether the country will even remain as it was founded, or should it change to be something significantly different. In many respects, it is the same question faced in the revolution.
Was the revolution wrong? Did it violate “Paul’s teaching about submission to civil authority in Romans 13?” This is nowhere near as easy a question as that of patriotism. On the one hand, if Paul could say what he said in the context of Caesar and Rome, wouldn’t it apply even more so against King George and England? Is Paul’s teaching a universal one that applies in all cases and every situation? Was Bonhoeffer wrong not to submit to Hitler’s government?
These are not easy questions, and in one sense I am tempted to be comforted by the fact that I do need to directly answer them. If the revolution was wrong, the fault lies with those responsible. Today the civil authority I am under is the United States, independent of how it came to be. But, in another sense I do need to answer these questions, and while I do not see this as in any means clear cut, there are several factors that cause me to question how Paul’s teaching really applies in this situation.
The first is that the American revolution was truly unique in many ways, and not just in its success. In fact, I believe it is these differences that led to its success and kept it from falling into the disasters of so many other revolutions most notably the French Revolution and the reign of terror that followed.
While truly out of vogue today, one of these distinctive aspects was the Christian underpinnings of the revolution. While the revolution itself was far from a religious movement, as I detail in my book, Preserving Democracy, the intellectual roots come out of the Great Awakening. While downplayed by the now prevailing secularism, those in the revolution saw God’s hand behind many of the “coincidences” that allowed the revolution to succeed and that even some modern historians have labeled miraculous, though not accepting the theistic implications of the term. (For some examples from a theistic perspective, see The American Miracle, by Michael Medved).
But none of this goes to the heart of Paul’s teaching. Still, even here, there is a unique difference and this difference can be seen in the question faced by those alive at the time: to which civil authority should they submit? When the colonies were settled, they were, for the most part, left to themselves. The thirteen colonies set up governments to rule themselves and these governments were the civil authority under which the colonist lived.
This only started to change following the Seven Years War, as the King began to try and impose his will on the colonies. The civil authorities of the colonies attempted to seek accommodation with the King and it was only when that failed did they declare independence. Independence was not declared by a group of individuals seeking to overthrow the government. It was an act of “the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, [done], in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies.”
This was a situation that did not, and could not, exist in Paul’s Rome. The key question was, must a people who had until then governed themselves, submit to King who had up to that point ignored them. Does the fundamental authority of government exist with the people, or does it reside with whomever happens to be the current King? This was not even a question in Paul’s time, where rulership was based, not on the authority of the people, but on raw power and who had it.
For the colonists, the fundamental authority rested with the people and those who voted to declare Independence were acting as duly empowered representatives of that civil authority, a civil authority that had existed long before the then current dispute with King. Thus, in a very real sense, the “revolutionary” in this situation, i.e., the one who was trying to overthrow the status quo, was not the colonists, but the King.
Ultimately the question of the American Revolution is: does political power derive from the people, or does might make right, and whoever has the power gets to do whatever they want. This is not just an abstract and merely historical question. It is a question that is still with us now more than ever and I do not think Paul’s teaching precludes me from taking a stance on this question.
Elgin Hushbeck, Jr., Engineer, teacher, Christian apologist, and author of Preserving Democracy, What is Wrong with Social Justice?, A Short Critique of Climate Change, Christianity and Secularism, and Evidence for the Bible. -
Resurrection As Fulfillment
by Dr. Edward W.H. Vick, retired professor and author of Death, Immortality and Resurrection, From Inspiration to Understanding: Reading the Bible Seriously and Faithfully, Philosophy for Believers, Creation: The Christian Doctrine, History and Christian Faith and more!
Through the resurrection God brings into being His new people, the community of resurrection faith. The spokesmen of this earliest faith, the writers of our New Testament, related what God had done in Jesus Christ to what He had done in Old Testament days. They read what God had done in Jesus Christ in the light of what He had promised and what He had done in the history of the Hebrew people. They saw that, in different ways, the revelation of God to Israel had now been fulfilled in Jesus Christ and in His new community, the church of the resurrection. Jesus, as the act of God, had come to them from a past in which talk of God’s activity was assumed at the very basis of faith. It was this knowledge of God, as a God of mighty acts, a saving God who moved to effect the health and the salvation and righteousness of His people, that enabled the Christian believers to proclaim that in the resurrection of Jesus there was manifest the decisive act of God.
Resurrection is God’s act. This was the message of the early Christian preachers. It was God who raised up Jesus from the dead, and in this act fulfilled his promises. Now that they could confess resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the Christian believers could take a second look at the prophecies of the Old Testament and the great promises of God to the key figures in the history of Israel. In this way, God’s promises to Israel were viewed in a new light. A most important conviction emerged (as stated in II Corinthians 1:20): ‘All the promises of God find their Yes in Him’ (R.S.V). The Old Testament was thus seen as a series of anticipatory promises, whose meaning and purpose could be seen only in the light of God’s act in raising Jesus from the dead. Thus, the books of the Old Testament came to be read for the encouragement of the churches, and as source materials for the confession of faith in Jesus Christ. The promises therein written were now seen to contain new possibilities. The Gospel of God had been promised ‘beforehand by His prophets in the holy Scriptures’ (Romans 1:2). ‘For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope’ (Romans 15:4).
What we have in Jesus Christ, according to the interpretation of the New Testament, is the future of the promises given to the Hebrews and documented in their sacred Scriptures. ‘Remembering the promise issued aforetime means asking about the future in the past.’ The Old Testament is a book of anticipation. The New Testament believed that it could look back from the vantage point of a fulfilment and see the meaning of what was said.
One could approach the past with a new set of questions, and receive illumination as one did so. Was this indeed what the promises really meant? If so, the future of the promises may have to be seen as quite different from what had been customarily and for long years expected. The anticipations and the questions took new shape as the answer gave a hint of what should be awaited and of what should be asked. It was in the light of the certainty of the answer that had been given in the act of God in the resurrection of Jesus Christ that the Old Testament, now seen as anticipatory of what had taken place, could be (as indeed it was) taken into the Christian community as a ‘sacred’ book.
God’s act in the resurrection is His saving act in the world, His world, the world of His creation. That act is God’s creative word directed toward man in his need. God’s last word is not the destruction of sinful man in death. Jesus, who had identified Himself with the sinner, was put to death upon the cross. But crucifixion is not the last word. In the resurrection of this man there is revealed for the first time the possibility of a new relationship between God and the man whom he has judged in death — which means the revelation of a new situation in which God and the sinner are reconciled. God’s last word is not the destruction of sinful man in death but the foundation of a new life through the resurrection. In the raising of the Crucified, it is revealed that the peccator (sinner) can at the same time also be justus (righteous).
In Jesus, man’s salvation is not simply promised, as it is in the prophets. In Jesus, in the resurrection, man’s salvation is realised. In Jesus, the union between God and man is made complete. Resurrection follows death as the act of God. In Jesus Christ, the divine righteousness has happened among men in the presence of this man. Through the resurrection divine righteousness comes to the unjust. He is raised for our justification (Romans 4:25), that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. (II Corinthians 5:21) -
Bob Cornwall: Religion and Human Rights
by Dr. Robert D. Cornwall, pastor and author, from his blog, Ponderings on a Faith Journey. Author of Faith in the Public Square, Ultimate Allegiance: The Subversive Nature of the Lord’s Prayer, Unfettered Spirit: Spiritual Gifts for the New Great Awakening, Marriage in Interesting Times: A Pariticipatory Study Guide,and more!
On the evening of March 21st, I had the privilege of being one of three speakers at a Niagara Foundation sponsored Abrahamic Dinner. This event was held at Rochester College, and brought together members of the Islamic, Jewish, and Christian communities — to promote dialog and understanding. Each of us, a Rabbi, an Imam, a Christian pastor, was asked to speak to the ways in which our faith traditions understand human rights, and whether this overlaps with or differs from secular understandings. We were asked to speak from the perspective of our own faith tradition, which is difficult when Christianity’s 2 billion adherents are divided into thousands of denominations and sects. Nonetheless, I did my best! As for my partners, the Rabbi went first, and I didn’t find much if anything to disagree with. In fact, he set me up nicely! As for the Imam, I learned a lot about the flexibility of Islamic law, which allows for support of human rights (more so perhaps than secular American law).
Since this is an important conversation, I decided to share some of what I said. Below you will find my answer to the first question, which dealt with my traditions codes of human rights and relationship to secular codes. Before I share below, I want to add that I agree completely with the Rabbi’s statement that the Jewish tradition, and the Christian tradition following it, speaks not of rights but obligations. That said, I invite you to consider my response:
(Read more)
[slideshow_deploy id=’2343′]
-
Allan Bevere: Instruction and Indictment: The Sermon on the Mount and Discipleship – John Wesley
by Dr. Allan R. Bevere, pastor, professor and author of Colossians and Philemon: A Participatory Study Guide, The Politics of Witness: The Character of the Church in the World, and The Character of our Discontent.
John Wesley (1703-1791) believed the Sermon on the Mount was very relevant for the current age. Of his fifty-two standard sermons, thirteen are from texts on the Sermon on the Mount. Wesley says several things in his first sermon from Matthew 5:1-4. (All the following quotes are from this sermon of Wesley.)
First, Wesley suggests that Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5-7 focus on showing the way to heaven. He says this not only from the context of the Sermon, but because of the one preaching it– “From the character of the Speaker, we are well assured that he hath declared the full and perfect will of God.” The character of the one proclaiming means that the words spoken are “true and right concerning all things.” Wesley is placing the Sermon in the larger Nicene-Chalcedonian theological context. Jesus’ words are true and right because the one speaking the words is divine.
(Read more)
[slideshow_deploy id=’2564′]
-
Edward W. H. Vick: Resurrection As Fulfilment
by Dr. Edward W.H. Vick, retired professor and author of From Inspiration to Understanding: Reading the Bible Seriously and Faithfully, Philosophy for Believers, Creation: The Christian Doctrine, History and Christian Faith and more!
Through the resurrection God brings into being His new people, the community of resurrection faith. The spokesmen of this earliest faith, the writers of our New Testament, related what God had done in Jesus Christ to what He had done in Old Testament days. They read what God had done in Jesus Christ in the light of what He had promised and what He had done in the history of the Hebrew people. They saw that, in different ways, the revelation of God to Israel had now been fulfilled in Jesus Christ and in His new community, the church of the resurrection. Jesus, as the act of God, had come to them from a past in which talk of God’s activity was assumed at the very basis of faith. It was this knowledge of God, as a God of mighty acts, a saving God who moved to effect the health and the salvation and righteousness of His people, that enabled the Christian believers to proclaim that in the resurrection of Jesus there was manifest the decisive act of God.
Resurrection is God’s act. This was the message of the early Christian preachers. It was God who raised up Jesus from the dead, and in this act fulfilled his promises. Now that they could confess the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the Christian believers could take a second look at the prophecies of the Old Testament and the great promises of God to the key figures in the history of Israel. In this way, God’s promises to Israel were viewed in a new light. A most important conviction emerged (as stated in II Corinthians 1:20): ‘ALL the promises of God find their Yes in Him’ (R.S.V). The Old Testament was thus seen as a series of anticipatory promises, whose meaning and purpose could be seen only in the light of God’s act in raising Jesus from the dead. Thus, the books of the Old Testament came to be read for the encouragement of the churches, and as source materials for the confession of faith in Jesus Christ. The promises therein written were now seen to contain new possibilities. The Gospel of God had been promised ‘beforehand by His prophets in the holy Scriptures’ (Romans 1:2). ‘For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope’ (Romans 15:4).
What we have in Jesus Christ, according to the interpretation of the New Testament, is the future of the promises given to the Hebrews and documented in their sacred Scriptures. ‘Remembering the promise issued aforetime means asking about the future in the past.’ The Old Testament is a book of anticipation. The New Testament believed that it could look back from the vantage point of a fulfilment and see the meaning of what was said.
One could approach the past with a new set of questions, and receive illumination as one did so. Was this indeed what the promises really meant? If so the future of the promises may have to be seen as quite different from what had been customarily and for long years expected. The anticipations and the questions took new shape as the answer gave a hint of what should be awaited and of what should be asked. It was in the light of the certainty of the answer that had been given in the act of God in the resurrection of Jesus Christ that the Old Testament, now seen as anticipatory of what had taken place, could be (as indeed it was) taken into the Christian community as a ‘sacred’ book.
God’s act in the resurrection is His saving act in the world, His world, the world of His creation. That act is God’s creative word directed toward man in his need. God’s last word is not the destruction of sinful man in death. Jesus, who had identified Himself with the sinner, was put to death upon the cross. But crucifixion is not the last word. In the resurrection of this man there is revealed for the first time the possibility of a new relationship between God and the man whom he has judged in death — which means the revelation of a new situation in which God and the sinner are reconciled. God’s last word is not the destruction of sinful man in death but the foundation of a new life through the resurrection. In the raising of the Crucified, it is revealed that the peccator (sinner) can at the same time also be justus (righteous).’
In Jesus man’s salvation is not simply promised, as it is in the prophets, in Jesus in the resurrection man’s salvation is realized. In Jesus the union between God and man is made complete. Resurrection follows death as the act of God. In Jesus Christ the divine righteousness has happened among men in the presence of this man. Through the resurrection divine righteousness comes to the unjust. He is raised for our justification (Romans 4:25), that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him (II Corinthians 5:21).
[slideshow_deploy id=’2645′] -
C. Drew Smith: Ash Wednesday: Reflecting on the Vulnerability of Life
by Dr. C. Drew Smith, professor and Director of the Center for International Programs at Henderson State University, and author of Reframing a Relevant Faith.
from Dr. Smith’s blog, Wilderness Preacher –
Today, Ash Wednesday, marks the beginning of the Season of Lent. There are many practices Christians carry out during this holy season; practices such as fasting and praying that are meant to draw us closer to God as we reflect on the last days of Jesus on this earth. But often we neglect these practices, and I think we may be particularly inclined to neglect these practices during times of stress and uncertainly like we are facing in our current situation.
Yet, now is the time that we should be considering the Season of Lent as a period in which we reflect on the vulnerability of life, as represented in Jesus’ last days on earth. The time of Lent should be a period in which we remind ourselves that life is full of uncertainty, as well as the hope of new life God offers to us.
We sometimes shy away from talking about the uncertainty and vulnerability of life, however, for when we do we think we are being distrustful and even faithless. Yet, the reality of life is that it is full of uncertainties. Indeed, to put it simply, there is a certainty to life’s uncertainties. Problems will come upon us, whether these are caused by our own choices or the actions of others and some of these problems can challenge our faith significantly.
(Read more …)
[slideshow_deploy id=’2613′] -
Edward W. H. Vick: Reading Scripture
by Dr. Edward W.H. Vick, retired professor and author of From Inspiration to Understanding: Reading the Bible Seriously and Faithfully, Creation: The Christian Doctrine, Philosophy for Believers, and more!
We have different purposes when we come to read Scripture. We may distinguish two approaches, by the individual and by the established community.The Community
For many centuries the Bible was in languages the individual Christian could not understand. So what the Bible said was locked away from the majority. Greek, the language of the New Testament, Latin the language of the dominant church, and Hebrew the language of the Old Testament was available only for the few. So the church’s representatives who were able to communicate to the masses provided them with their favoured interpretations for acceptance by those who had no reference to the text of Scripture.
The Individual
There were champions for the individual however. But not till very late in the Christian story. Tyndale and Luther were passionate in believing that given opportunity the individual, humble however he might be, could readily read and understand the Christian teachings if they had access to the text of Scripture. They struggled to provide translations that the ploughboy could read and understand. Two names, among others stand out: William Tyndale and Martin Luther.
It is no longer the case that the text of Scripture is inaccessible to the majority of Christians. We may and must distinguish between two approaches to Scripture.
The individual reads Scripture for the spiritual and moral uplift and understanding it provides. The church community seeks confirmation of its doctrine by reference to Scripture. Indeed some churches claim that their whole teaching is based on Scripture. The serious question then is this: How does one approach Scripture so as to arrive at doctrines that the church teaches as essential? That is the problem that is addressed by the question: Which is a correct and valid way of so interpreting Scripture that what results is faithful to Scripture. This is the activity we call hermeneutic.
We can therefore examine not only the actual teachings, the doctrines of a community, but make clear the method of interpreting Scripture that has led to the production of such doctrines. Such methods of interpreting Scripture are often reflections of particular situations, as indeed the coming into being of the diverse ‘writings’ of Scripture was. To understand in asking the question about hermeneutic, we must examine the historical context in which the hermeneutic emerged. This we must of course do also with reference to the emergence of the many various ‘writings’ included in the biblical canon that we are interpreting.Divergence
An interesting question arises. How might the devotional, individual reading of Scripture influence the development or acceptance of doctrinal positions? Individual believers as they give careful attention to what they are reading will relate what they understand Scripture to teach to the teachings of the church community of which they are members. Then they may make a decision. Do they correspond? If the reader discerns that they do not, he may resolve the conflict by rejecting the teachings of the church or by asking for consideration of alternatives. In this way the opportunity for the personal reading of Scripture poses a threat to a traditional church. Sometimes that produced determined opposition by the establishment to the translation of Scripture. The cruelty with which such opposition was exposed is well attested. Tyndale and his supporters provide an all too typical example. That is now in the past.
However, some churches have an orthodoxy they seek to maintain rigidly. The sad fact of the rejection of those who doubt and suggest alternatives is well attested. Sanctions of various kinds are applied to such people. A closed community then remains closed, enclosed by the insistence of holding rigidly to its traditions, sometimes defending its insistence by claiming that its doctrine is a direct and valid interpretation, i.e., rendering, of Scripture. Here there is conflict with the conviction of the individual reader. Sometimes it leads to reformation. Sometimes to emphatic insistence on maintaining the established teaching, to revival rather than to reformation.
[slideshow_deploy id=’2645′]