rain and the rhinoceros

I just discovered this new interesting looking book by David Burrell just released entitled Deconstructing Theodicy: Why Job Has Nothing to Say to the Puzzle of Suffering.

I pulled this blurb off the Brazos websites:

Maimonides called Job a “strange and wonderful book.” For many readers, “strange” might well suffice. Though Job has been characterized as a theodicy, to the sincere reader the book can fail to satisfy the soul’s longing for answers to the problem of suffering. Perhaps that in fact is the point of Job–there are no satisfactory propositional arguments for why people suffer.
In this compact-yet-rich volume, philosopher of religion David Burrell shows that Job actually deconstructs the theories of theodicy proposed by commentators over the centuries. This is seen in the fact that Job’s three friends themselves offer theodicies, but are rebuked in the end; whereas Job, who seeks only to speak to God, is granted his audience. Rather than providing an exegetical commentary, Burrell engages in theological and philosophical reflection on the major movements of the book. Deconstructing Theodicy also contains an interfaith perspective with the inclusion of a chapter by Islamic scholar A. H. Johns on the reading of the Job figure in the Koran. Burrell then goes on to examine the treatment of Job in four classical commentaries and finally explores Job’s contribution to faith and theology as an affirmation that God hears and heeds our cries of anguish.

Ben Meyers over at Faith and Theology has contributed a thoughtful post on “proofs” for the resurrection and why they are theologically misguided. It is well worth reading…

I just wanted to mention that Stanley Hauerwas has recently published a “theological commentary” on Matthew with Brazos Press. I bought it a few weeks ago and quickly read it.I am always skeptical of “theological commentaries” or “theological reflections on the Bible” for they are often either shallow theologically or historically. Of course, the problem of a biblical scholar writing a theological commentary is that usually he or she fails to have adequate theological training. The reverse is true for the theologian who though may be theologically articulate, has little training in the biblical languages, textual-criticism, or any of the other historical-critical methods. The reality is that this is the natural consequence of specialization.As an avid reader of Hauerwas and a student of the historical-critical method I was particularly interested in this commentary.The following is my review of the book:

Hauerwas, Stanley. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006.In recent centuries the task of writing biblical commentaries has almost exclusively been left in the hands of “the experts.” Due to the ever-increasing specialization of the theological disciplines and the high value placed on the pursuit of uncovering the “truth” via the utilization of modern historical-critical methods, biblical scholars have found themselves holding (even if inadvertently) a virtual monopoly on the content and nature of the Bible. To be sure, the recognition that a great historical wedge exists between the first century and the present day is nothing new, but the belief that truth about God can be known only if Christian convictions are disentangled from our reading of the biblical text, surely is. Of course, the hijacking of the Bible by disinterested biblical scholars has not gone on without a great deal of protest. Indeed, many theologians and biblical scholars alike have pointed out the “bankruptcy of the historical criticism.” However, many of the recent attempts to read the Bible both historically and theologically have failed to do either justice. As a result of specialization and the disinterested nature inherent in historical-critical methods, many biblical scholars have lost the ability to couple their historical findings with useful theological insight. On the other side of the fence, “like stroke victims,” theologians have forgotten the skills of careful interpretation.The editors of the “Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible” series were not unaware of this dilemma, but they have nonetheless taken the risk to, once again, invite theologians to reflect on the Bible, not as disinterested critics but as theologians. Perhaps an even greater risk was taken when the series editors asked Stanley Hauerwas to write the commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, for in his own words, “few could be as ill prepared as I was for this task”(18). No doubt reflecting the feelings of many theologians Hauerwas laments in the preface of Matthew, “…most of the habits that come with being a theologian in modernity do not help us know how to write a theological commentary”(18). Nevertheless, true to form, Hauerwas rises to the challenge bringing his theological creativity and theo-political critique to every page of this commentary.Unlike modern historical-critical commentaries, Hauerwas’ Matthew is not concerned about historical questions. In fact, he does not even address basic questions regarding authorship, origin, or the date of the Gospel. Instead, Hauerwas approaches the gospel as a text of the church that witnesses to the revelation who is Jesus Christ. He does not attempt to get “behind” the text or get in the mind of the author in order to find the “real” or “historical” Jesus. Rather, Hauerwas is comfortable working with the final form of the text. Because Matthew wrote in order to “make us disciples of Christ” we must in obedience “submit to Matthew’s discipline”(19). Thus, Hauerwas’ first goal is to retell the story faithfully by writing “with” the author of Matthew.While retelling the narrative first told by Matthew, Hauerwas seeks to script “our lives into the story.” Of course, by ‘our lives’ Hauerwas is referring to himself along with his foreseen audience, that is, Christians living in the United States. In his many books and articles Hauerwas has decried what he perceives as “the accommodation of the church to America,” or what his mentor John Howard Yoder referred to as “Constantinianism.” This commentary is no different; Hauerwas refuses to ignore the “privatization” of Christianity in the United States and the need for a more truthful and faithful politics. He calls for nothing less than the complete renunciation of worldly politics to be replaced by the politics of the kingdom of God. Hauerwas demonstrates that the politics of Jesus runs counter to the politics of the world. He points out that the United States is not an exception to the politics that defines the nation-states of the world, for all states secure power over others through the use of violence. For Hauerwas then, the message of Jesus as outlined by the Sermon on the Mount “is not a list of requirements, but rather a description of the life of a people gathered by and around Jesus” (61).In the commentary Hauerwas’ recent interest in the life and work of Dietrich Bonhoeffer is also evident. Threaded throughout the commentary are dozens of quotes from Bonhoeffer. Hauerwas is convinced by Bonhoeffer’s emphasis on the importance of “truthful speech” and the visibility of the church. In his comments on Matthew chapter five Hauerwas talks about what it means for Christians to be the salt and light of the world. He agrees with Bonhoeffer that the church must become a people capable of truthful speech, which must always be “as visible as light in the night, as a mountain in the flatland” (63). Truthful speech is not a private affair; for Christians, visibility means nothing less than participation in an alternative politics: one that challenges the politics of death by living faithfully and obediently according to the Beatitudes.If it has not yet become obvious, Hauerwas’ Matthew is thoroughly theological. He has not written a traditional verse-by-verse commentary. Instead, this book is much more like reading a novel. Hauerwas moves almost seamlessly from description and narrative to constructive and prescriptive theological reflections for today’s church confronted by globalized consumerism. Although he wants to be faithful to the text of Matthew, he is not overly concerned about the “intended meaning of the author” or historical context. He is looking for how the narrative told by Matthew challenges our modern assumptions about the truthfulness of democracy and liberal individualism. He does not try to adapt the content of Matthew to our new historical context; rather he points the church back to the assumptions of Matthew and the early church – that Jesus is the Son of God.Hauerwas does not state his methodology, and if there is a consistent approach, it is difficult for this reviewer to discern. At times, one wonders whether Hauerwas simply does not care about the results of historical biblical scholarship or whether he is just ignorant. At the beginning of his commentary, for instance, Hauerwas talks about the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew: “The book of the genesis of Jesus Christ.” He seems to think that Matthew has in mind the actual book of Genesis or at least the origins of humanity. It becomes clear that Hauerwas thinks this way because he makes certain assumptions about Matthew’s Christology. Whereas most modern critical scholarship has argued that Matthew has a low Christology that would have no concept of a pre-existent Jesus, Hauerwas seems to presuppose that Matthew would have affirmed the traditional creeds of the church. Once again, it is difficult to know whether Hauerwas is ignorant of scholarship on this issue, or whether he just does not care. After all, he is writing a theological commentary that attempts to bring Christian convictions to the text.Despite the existence of a few more historical errors like the one above, Hauerwas generally manages to be faithful to the content of Matthew. His lack of historical commentary actually allows more space for theological reflection on the narrative of Matthew, something which Hauerwas does exceptionally well. Surely a better understanding of modern research on the subject could have strengthened this commentary, but this does not take away from the theological insights of the commentary. In the tradition of Yoder, Hauerwas helps to shed light on the social and political significance of the gospel. Furthermore, he reshapes our concepts and assumptions about what is private and what is public about faith. Above all, Hauerwas wants to point out that the church is called to a higher standard of speech and living. In order to be faithful to Jesus he calls the church to become better witnesses to the kingdom of heaven by speaking truth and the peace of God in a world that secures kingdoms through deceit and violence.

Anonymous said…

What you are neglecting to mention is that all of your hermeneutics are flawed.

Far better to present your opinions with the caveat…’My interpretation is…’ and you might want to add…’at this point in my life’…for trust me it will CHANGE because life is change.

The written word can augment hidden hubris, and this is the patronizing and defensive tone that seems to underline rebuttals to Mack’s more deferential postings…

I will remain anonymous. I am well read, fearful of the aggression of insistent post-moderns and de-constructionists.

It sounds like I’m a bit older than you and if you’d like me to take you seriously, you would learn to speak with more humility and less authority. Nobody listens to bullies unless coerced. Are these entries bullying? I’d ask you to re-read them and let me know.

If you don’t think so, I will leave you to your ivory tower posturing.

Ry’s response:

1. If you think an individual’s “hermeneutic” is flawed, please clearly indicate why.
2. No one has made the claim that views don’t change.
3. I take it for granted that when someone expresses an opinion that that is that persons opinion. I find it redundant to use “the caveat…’My interpretation is…’” or “‘at this point in my life’” for these simply point out the obvious.
4. Indeed, “the written word can augment hidden hubris” and that is why we dialogue…for clarity!
5. You state, “I am well read, fearful of the aggression of insistent post-moderns and de-constructionists.” I’m not sure how these two clauses fit together. I’m glad to know that you have read a lot. As far as I know, no one has made any comment related to postmodernism or deconstructionism, which makes this comment particularly curious. For the sake of clarification, could you point out something that has been said that suggests that someone is a “post-modern” and a “de-constructionist.”?
6. You have entered our conversation. We have not entered yours. You have purposely not revealed to us your name or your views on the subjects that have been addressed. With these things in mind, why is it that you think that we are concerned about you taking us seriously? I have you given you the benefit of the doubt, by responding to everyone of your comments and dealing with each concern individually. I have taken you seriously not because of your age, your humility, how many books you’ve read, or the eloquence of your language. I have taken you seriously because you are a human being, created in the image of God. I have taken you seriously because I believe that conversations about faith and theology are an important part of being human. If you continue to make ad hominem remarks that lack substance, then I will continue to respond. Not because I am trying to place myself above the rest, but because I am trying to be faithful to the call of Jesus Christ.

Mack said…
I’ve been away for a while and glad to see so many aboard.

There are lots of ideas here to tackle, but here are a few thoughts.

First, in fairness, the ‘violence’ I was refering to was in reference to the discussion on reconciliation (was there divine punishment from which mankind needed salvation?), and not in reference to just-war, pacifism, etc, as interesting as that discussion is.

Next, the issue I’d like to address goes to EJ, Halden, and Ry’s comments. Halden and Ry suggest that we need to reinterpret the OT using Jesus as our guide. They suggest that we pick and choose through the texts to understand God’s intent. It sure sounds lovely and inspired to say, “The criterion by which we make these choices must take the person of Jesus and his teachings as the ultimate authority for Christian faith and practice,” but practically speaking, if we are picking and choosing which texts we will follow, and which one’s we can disqualify as being only cultural nuances, and if we are interpreting Jesus’ teachings, even corporately, are we not simply re-writing Christianity? Ry even said, “history shows us that many times humans use their gods for self-interested… ends”. What stops the inspired person from re-interpreting Jesus’ teachings and making these teachings mean whatever they want, to satisfy their own self-interested ends? History shows that this happens and that it is dangerous. I would agree with Jonathan that rejecting some parts of the Bible, or only accepting some parts, is a precarious move. Our own perceptions of right or wrong (cultural, religious, moral) will inevitably inform our interpretation. And before very long Christianity means nothing more than what we want it to mean.

As such, and as much as I hate to say it, I would suggest that the integrity of Christianity as a religion relies on an adherence to all the texts. If one chooses not to agree with all parts of the texts, that’s fine, but one must know that you cannot belong to mainstream ‘Christianity’ and should actually question whether it is appropriate to still be labelled ‘a Christian.’

We’ve been having a great discussion on the authority of the Bible in Christianity and hermeneutics. Please feel free to jump on in!

Mack said…
the issue I’d like to address goes to EJ, Halden, and Ry’s comments. Halden and Ry suggest that we need to reinterpret the OT using Jesus as our guide. They suggest that we pick and choose through the texts to understand God’s intent. It sure sounds lovely and inspired to say, “The criterion by which we make these choices must take the person of Jesus and his teachings as the ultimate authority for Christian faith and practice,” but practically speaking, if we are picking and choosing which texts we will follow, and which one’s we can disqualify as being only cultural nuances, and if we are interpreting Jesus’ teachings, even corporately, are we not simply re-writing Christianity? Ry even said, “history shows us that many times humans use their gods for self-interested… ends”. What stops the inspired person from re-interpreting Jesus’ teachings and making these teachings mean whatever they want, to satisfy their own self-interested ends? History shows that this happens and that it is dangerous. I would agree with Jonathan that rejecting some parts of the Bible, or only accepting some parts, is a precarious move. Our own perceptions of right or wrong (cultural, religious, moral) will inevitably inform our interpretation. And before very long Christianity means nothing more than what we want it to mean.

As such, and as much as I hate to say it, I would suggest that the integrity of Christianity as a religion relies on an adherence to all the texts. If one chooses not to agree with all parts of the texts, that’s fine, but one must know that you cannot belong to mainstream ‘Christianity’ and should actually question whether it is appropriate to still be labelled ‘a Christian.’

In response to Mack:

First off, there is no way to stop “our own perceptions of right or wrong (cultural, religious,moral)” from informing our interpretation. We will inevitably interpret scripture in different ways, precisely because we’ve been formed by different experiences. There is a reason why the poor in Latin America interpret scripture with radically different eyes than the rich in the U.S. or Canada. There is no “objective” reading of the biblical text and it is theologically questionable that objectivity ought to be our main goal. The biblical authors constantly reinterpret scripture to support their own viewpoint. Their interpretations are far from the original literal meaning of the text.

Second, the biblical text does not point to itself, but rather to a person, a life, and an event: Jesus the Christ. Jesus as God’s self-revelation is the authority for Christian theology, not the Bible. If we give authority to the Bible, it leads us to Jesus.

Third, no Christian has ever “adhered” to all the texts. Indeed, Christianity has rarely shown integrity, but not because it has lost a view of scriptural authority or inspiriation. Integrity is lost when people compromise their faith in God by creating idols to worship, such as consumerism, individualism, and yes, even biblicism.

Fourth, my views on scriptural authority may seem outside of mainstream Christianity and you may think I am not a Christian. To this, I have no response.

Thanks,
Ry

Interesting questions Mack. I would like to address the question about the violence of God in the Old Testament. The first place that any discussion about God’s character has to start is the source of the evidence for the claims that are being forwarded. In the case of your claim, or the claim that I believe you are making, that God, although it may be difficult to understand or accept, is violent (or at least condones and commands violent acts), I see the use of the Old Testament as the source of your evidence.

You claim that the Old Testament provides evidence that God in some way supports or condones violence. I will accept without argument the manifold passagess in the Old Testament where God is said to look the other way when violent acts are carried out, and the more numerous accounts of God directly condoning or commanding violent acts. I don’t believe that for our current purposes we need to get into the symantics of the meaning of violence, I believe that we can all agree on the above. My question, in responce to yours, is: what authority do you give the Old Testament as a whole, the passages refering to violence aside, in providing evidence for the character of God? The very least that we can reasonably say about the Old Testament (note the use of “least”) is that it is a collection of historical documents, whose historical validity is confirmed through several manuscript sources, and that testify to the beliefs and feelings of their authors, or perhaps even the culture of their time. If you are going to forward a more specific claim regarding the usefulness of the Old Testament documents for providing evidence of the character of God, something that I expect you would do of few, if any, other historical documents, you will first need to provide evidence that supports your claim that the Old Testament be used in this way.

The Jews did perform sacrifices to God as “a way to tend to their sins.” The early church, especially Paul, interpreted Jesus’ death as “the ulitmate sacrifice.” The concept that Jesus’ death was the atonement for human sin and the way God reconciled himself with humanity is a traditional Christian belief. However, the way in which this is understood has been more controversial. Some have argued that Jesus’ death was a ransom paid to Satan (Christus Victor) that in some way Christ’s death conquers evil. Others have argued that Jesus’ death satisfied God’s wrath (divine justice). There are other perspectives on this as well. All of these perspectives were formulated post-death/resurrection, and I would argue the New Testament ha multiple perspectives on the significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

To be honest, I think all of these views have theological problems. In particular, the concept that Jesus satisfied the wrath of God, which is what Craig was alluding to. Because I don’t believe in a violent God, I have difficultly holding that God used a violent situation, or created a violent situation to appease his wrath. Furthermore, it is even more troubling to think that he called his son into the world to be tortured, and murdered at the hands of the Roman Empire as means for God’s wrath to be satisfied. I call this divine child abuse.

I think there are other ways of look at Jesus’ death and resurrection as significant for reconciliation with God and others. I usually focus on the historical fact that Jesus was tortured and murdered at the hands of the Roman state. And through his resurrection, God demonstrated his power over the violence of states and violence in general. God is a God of life. Through Jesus he has conquered death. I believe that hope and reconciliation is found in the person of Jesus and the God who raised him from the dead.

I’m so ecstatic about people’s comments that I would like to put the latest one on a post, so it is more noticable. Here it is:

Mack said…
This is an interesting discussion. A few thoughts:

rhythmicwandering: I’m a little concerned with this reasoning. Indeed, Jesus’ life and death did show us an entirely new way of living and thinking. But I’m not sure that ‘he reconciled us to God by showing us … (the right way to live)…’. I’m not a biblical scholar, but my understanding is that the Jews performed sacrifices as a way to tend to their sins. When Jesus died, he was the ultimate sacrifice. Mankind no longer needed to perform sacrifices because Jesus died in the place of infinite lambs. In this death, Jesus reconciled man to God permanently, whereas previously sacrificial lambs were only temporary.

I stress this because I’m concerned about diminishing the importance of Christ’s death. Unless you can articulate it more clearly, I don’t think that Jesus’ example (ie. his life, lessons, etc) can be said to be part of this reconciliation. The reconciliation required the death of the Lamb.

To be clear, and partly in response to Marcia and Ry, this does not mean that we ought not try to be Christ-like. Christ’s teaching is certainly a window into the heart of God. Indeed, it was God himself showing us. But, the reconciliation, to my mind, has nothing to do with our individual responses to Christ’s teaching. It was an event that occurred between the God-man and the Divine himself. That seems to be the relevance of Christ becoming incarnate. It was man who died on the cross.

That said, as Ry pointed out in his later post, our response surely must have some relevance. But what that relevance is, that I’d like to flesh out some more. I truly don’t know. On the one hand I want to say Christ did everything for man and that man can do nothing, but on the other, I know that Jesus did teach us to ’sin no more’. We must have some part in receiving the reconciliation, but what can that be? Right now, it seems sufficient for me to say that we must *try*, and that is all (since we’re forever sinful), but that also seems lazy and difficult to gage. How much must we ‘try’?

I’d like some thoughts on these, if anyone is interested.

Fundamentalist Sacred Books, Classics, and Traditions

The Qur’an refers to the adherents of the three great monotheistic religions, that is, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as “People of the Book.” Certainly, this is true of Islam and its relation to the Qur’an. Perhaps, Judaism could also be seen in this light. However, the extent to which this is true of Christianity is debatable. Of course, it is important to define exactly what is meant by a religion or a people of a book. In what sense does the Christian faith relate to its scripture? There have been varying answers to this question since the earliest followers of Jesus. In fact, this was a hotly debated issue in the early church, and continues to be so among Christians today.
In the early church all sorts of questions were asked about the nature of scripture, canon, and biblical authority. During the first few centuries of Christianity there was no closed list of scripture, or what is sometimes called, a canon. While some followers of Jesus questioned whether it was right for Christians to have any scripture at all, others believed that the Jewish scriptures should continue to have authority for Christians. Indeed, it seems as though Jesus and Paul were not clear on the matter, for they were both Jews who spoke from the Jewish scriptures, yet also called the authority of the law, scribes, and the prophets into question. At a certain point, Christians decided to create a closed list of books. The list included some of the Jewish scriptures and some writings about Jesus and his early followers.
The problem has become more complicated throughout Christian history. Indeed, there is no such thing as a universal Christian canon anymore. Although most Christian canons are relatively similar, some traditions have included or excluded books over time. All Christian traditions have a recognized canon that is believed to be authoritative and inspired by God. These faith claims, however, are interpreted and applied in radically different ways from varying perspectives.
One radical way of understanding the authority and inspiration of the Bible is the Protestant fundamentalist viewpoint. While most Christian traditions accept that there are multiple perspectives on the authority and inspiration of the Bible, fundamentalists do not. Fundamentalists believe that there is only one true way to understand the nature of the Bible. They believe that the Bible is the only authority and rule for the Christian faith, because it is inspired by God. Moreover, fundamentalists believe that “inspired by God” means that the Bible is the word of God. It is commonly thought that if the Bible is the word of God (in a literal sense), then the Bible must be without error, for God does not err. Included in the belief in the inerrancy of the Bible is the concept of both theological and historical inerrancy, that is to say, the Bible conveys perfect theology, or to put it more acutely, the words of God himself, as well as an accurate account of history.
The belief in the historical inerrancy of the Bible is of crucial importance to fundamentalists, and distinguishes them from mainline Protestant faith, which might hold to theological inerrancy, but is less concerned with the accuracy of the Bible’s historical claims. It is arguable, however, that even maintaining a view that the Bible is theologically inerrant falls within the categories of fundamentalism. The fundamentalist belief that the Bible is inerrant in all respects is emphasized by its adherents. In this view, the Bible is thought to be the basis of Christian faith, doctrine, and practice. Of course, mainline Protestants insist on being biblically grounded, and even Catholic teaching speaks of this, but the main difference with fundamentalism is its unwavering insistence that the Bible is inerrant and that their interpretation of the Bible is the only correct interpretation. Indeed, some extreme forms of fundamentalism do not accept any kind of ecumenism, that is, they are not open to discussion with religious people of other Christian perspectives, much less with people of other religions.
The high place of scripture in Protestant fundamentalism can hardly be over emphasized. According to fundamentalists, the Bible ought to be the basis of faith, theology, history, and even present and future events. When I asked Pastor Kyle Stevens, the fundamentalist pastor in Coon Rapids, what word he would use to describe his church’s core beliefs, he said, “Well…the Bible!” Unlike most Christian traditions that think faith in Jesus should be a Christian’s first core belief, fundamentalists believe the Bible is central. At first glance, there does not seem to be anything inherently wrong about believing in the Bible first. Indeed, the documents within the Bible contain our best historical sources about Jesus. Moreover, Jesus and his early followers read the Jewish scriptures religiously, and the majority of Christian traditions today hold scripture in high authority for doctrine and practice. Therefore, it must be pointed out that Christian fundamentalist thought is not entirely removed from other forms of Christianity. It is also important to treat fundamentalism respectively and openly, for it is a legitimate way to practice Christianity.
We have already mentioned that the belief in inerrancy of the Bible distinguishes fundamentalism from mainline Protestantism. It is often said that the distinction lies in the fundamentalist insistence on having a literal interpretation of the text. Indeed, fundamentalist would agree with this distinction. The problem is that fundamentalists do not interpret the Bible literally. In fact, this has little to do with fundamentalist interpretation at all. The fundamentalist concern is and always has been wrapped up in protecting the inerrancy of the Bible. As James Barr rightly notes, “In order to avoid any imputing error to the Bible, fundamentalists twist and turn back and forward between literal and non-literal interpretation…indeed he has to do so in order to obtain a Bible that is error-free.”1
One reason why fundamentalists are so concerned about inerrancy is because they believe that the Bible is the word of God and cannot error. Furthermore, it is believed that if one accepts the existence of any sort of error in the biblical text, it makes the whole Bible unreliable. Of course, here one can already identify a common logical fallacy. Logicians call this the fallacy of composition: the concept that attributes of a part necessarily represents the attributes of the whole. Unreliability, it seems is one of the greatest fears among fundamentalists. For if the Bible is unreliable historically, theologically, or even geographically, then this also makes belief in God unreliable. Thus, any acceptance of error in the Bible has the potential to lead the fundamentalist to complete rejection of faith in God and Jesus. This is one reason why fundamentalists believe any one who is not a fundamentalist is not a true believer, for they do not believe that which is of ultimate importance, the reliability of the Bible and God. From this one may validly deduce that to fundamentalist faith belief in God and the inerrancy of the Bible are inseparable.
Perhaps, there are other reasons why inerrancy is so important to fundamentalists. James Barr has suggested that fundamentalists are especially concerned about the Bible in “correspondence to external reality.”2 Thus, it is believed that every event in the Bible occurred in history in exactly the way as it is recorded in the Bible. Not only does this belief refer to historical events recorded in the Bible, but also aids in the interpretation of present and future events. If a catastrophic national or world event occurs, such as a massive hurricane, a terrorist attack, or a war, then a fundamentalist might be inclined to turn to her Bible for an explanation. One might turn to apocalyptic images in some of the prophetic books in order to understand these events in the context of God’s plan as laid out in the Bible.
In order to make effective and convincing criticisms of Protestant fundamentalism, one’s argument must be biblically grounded. In other other words, one must attempt to interact with fundamentalism within its own framework and terms of thinking. Is there a biblical case to be made against a biblically centered Christianity? If a convincing case could be made, it would pose a challenge to both mainline Protestantism and its fundamentalist offshoots. For biblicism is not only found in marginalized fundamentalist churches, it is widespread among all forms of Protestantism, because the nature of biblical authority is a difficult matter for Christian faith.