More theologically conservative Presbyterians often ask of more theologically progressive Presbyterians, “What Bible are you reading?” Framed more fully, the question is “How can two people reading the same passages come to completely different conclusions about the veracity, meaning and applicability of the text to the realities of life today?”

One receives the Bible as the authentic and reliable revelation of a real God who is sovereign over all time and saw today before the world was ever made. He authored the Bible as a gift of grace so that people could know Him and His will. God has a pre-ordained redemptive plan for history and He is actively working it out even today. This reader desires to discern God's will in order to actively and submissively participate in it.

The other receives the Bible as one reference point to the Word of God, but not itself the Word of God. Other points of relevant reference include their life experiences, their perception of Jesus, their aspirations, the concerns of humanity and a progressive view of history. They desire to actively participate in a redemption of all things that is dependent upon human advancement, the cultivation of peace, the equalization of the marginalized and a genuinely pluralistic theology that accepts all religions that help advance that vision of history as equally valid. They also invalidate all religions that do not share their vision.

Do you see the difference? We're really talking here about the reality of people of two very different faiths both calling themselves "Presbyterian."

The first group regards the second as failing to uphold the most basic of Presbyterian and Reformed essentials, Sola Scriptura, and the second regards the first as “Biblio-idolaters,” worshiping the Bible as a “paper Pope.” If you think I’m exaggerating, read the letters to the editor that we posted on June 1 (especially the one titled “‘I consider much of what I read on The Layman to be Biblio-idolatry’).

On this point, there’s a particularly illuminating exchange on the denominational blog of the Vice Moderator of the PCUSA General Assembly. This particular exchange takes place in a comment thread following a post that castigates The Layman. That’s not what’s relevant. What is relevant is the vice moderator’s answer to this reader:

Mr. Whitsitt,

The Westminster Confession says this: "VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them."

Even granting your point about Scripture not "containing" the full mind of God, we do still believe that some things are knowable through the "clear preponderance" of Scripture, do we not?

I do agree that your more vocal critics are guilty of creating a "straw man argument," over your paraphrased views. Yet, I cannot help wondering whether your beliefs about Sola Scriptura being "dead," are based not on a dispassionate contemplation of Biblical discernment generally, but instead as a foundational point towards arguing very specifically on behalf of gay ordination, gay marriage, etc.

Some American judges are rightly faulted for reasoning after the fact – that is, for starting with a desired verdict they wish to reach and trying to contrive a legal opinion to justify that conclusion.

I daresay those traditionalists within the lay community of PCUSA who were alarmed by your comments believe this to be the real agenda here. Are they wrong to think so?

Posted by: Joe Duffus | 09/21/2010 at 03:56 PM

[Whitsitt’s reply to Duffus]

I must admit, your honesty about what you believe my position to be is both refreshing and shocking. Either way, it is helpful. Thank you for allowing us to cut to the chase, and in honor of your forthrightness I will address what I understand your main question to be first:

No, sir, I argue specifically for the full inclusion of our LGBT sisters and brothers *because* of what I find in the scriptures, not despite it. If you do believe me (and I hope that you do), what you are left with is the real reality that someone claiming to be a faithful follower of Christ understands that relationship very differently than you do. I do not have an ulterior motive that must be exposed.

To your secondary question:

I do not disagree that (as the Confession says) some things are clearly knowable. Where the Confession and I differ however is whether or not our relationship with God in Christ is dependent on us knowing, believing, or observing anything in scripture. I do not believe it is. To establish humanity knowing, believing or observing something as a requirement for entering a relationship with Christ is an affront to the sovereignty of God, in my opinion.

However, even that sort of discussion is secondary to the real point I've been trying (perhaps poorly) to make all along. You have asked me to either agree or disagree with a paragraph from a confession in the same way that I assume you would like me to agree or disagree with various portions of the Bible. And, while I understand that impulse, would you also ask me to agree to a few passages from the Scots and Secodn Helvetic Confessions which, in no uncertain terms, state that women are forbidden from ecclesiastical duties such as preaching and the administration of sacraments? I'm sure you would not. And so, we are left with a conundrum: What do we do when we are sure that we have misunderstood in the past?

I acknowledge that you do not think we have misunderstood on some specific points, but I hope that this gives you some insight into my argument with the Sola. In my opinion what we should be emphasizing is Solo Verbo Dei (The Word of the Lord alone), while using scripture as the first point on a journey (Prima Scriptura) through tradition and communal discernment to ascertain it.

grace and peace to you.

Posted by: Landon Whitsitt | 09/21/2010 at 05:27 PM

So, the real question is not what Bible are you reading, but “how” are you reading the Bible? And of much greater importance, how is the Bible “reading” and then transforming, you?