More on Packer and ""Fundamentalism" and the Word of God" here:
http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2008/03/fundamentalism-and-word-of-god-fifty_01.html
This link will take you into the blog of Paul Helm, Calvinist philosopher and theologian extraordinaire. This a cracking blog by a very stimulating and helpful contemporary Christian thinker, full of weighty and wonderful things. Paul Helm is currently a Teaching Fellow at Regent College in Vancouver, Canada.
Signing off -
The Scribbling Apprentice
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Homage á Packer: Fundamentalism and the Word of God
The following is a review (written some time ago and edited for clearer reading) of one of Packer's very influential little volumes, "Fundamentalism" and the Word of God. Although quite short and published over half a century ago, it remains a sharp and lucid vindication of the evangelical doctrine of Biblical revelation. Packer takes liberalism to task for misunderstanding and ultimately forfeiting the meaningful witness of the Biblical texts for the sake of what appears to be enlightened rationalism. As Packer shows, however, such a tack trades a rich inheritance for a mess of pottage. Of course, a critical reading of ""Fundamentalism" and the Word of God" in the context of the dizzying advances of critical theory and postmodernity shows up some of the short-comings of this work. However, in terms of a deft and clear exposition of the central matters at stake in the on-going debate over Biblical authority, Packer's work can hardly be bettered.
""Fundamentalism and the Word of God" (Eerdmans, 1958) by J. I Packer: A Review
Packer’s treatment of the topic of “fundamentalism” and the Bible opens up into a comprehensive engagement with the evangelical doctrine of Scripture and the contrasting trends of liberalism, which effectively rob Scripture of its authority and internal coherence. He shows up the often unexamined assumptions that underlie so much seemingly “scientific” criticism of Scripture and the inconsistencies bound into the liberal stance on the place and authority of Scripture.
Early on, Packer disregards the term “fundamentalism” as being unhelpful insofar as it is a term often used to convey and cover up opposition to the evangelical stance on the authority of the Bible. It is more often than not bound up in rhetoric and thus encourages emotional responses as opposed to clarity. Moving on from this point, Packer identifies authority as the main issue underpinning so much debate on the nature of Scripture. Essentially, he writes, there are only three possible views of the Bible; the evangelical, traditionalist and subjectivist viewpoints. Only the evangelical approach coheres with the texture of Scriptural authority and is thus in accord with apostolic tradition and Christ’s own view of the Scriptures. Scripture, on the basis of the evangelical view, is the rule of faith and life. The theological method Christ demands of the church must conform to the pattern of the Scriptures themselves; reason and human thought is thus to be shaped by the authority and witness of Scripture.
This is in direct contrast to the subjectivist approach to the Bible (the only real alternative to the evangelical standpoint) which is based primarily on the acceptance of the conclusions of nineteenth century critical Bible study. Such a viewpoint demands that Scripture errs at various points and must therefore be interpreted effectively by discerning scholars. Therefore, only Scripture that is pruned by human reason remains authoritative and not necessarily Scripture itself. The supreme authority is human reason; critical rationalism becomes the conduit of divine revelation. This approach underpins the subjectivist project, which is the staple methodology of liberalism.
In response to such a viewpoint, Packer unfurls a properly Biblical view of Scripture. He fleshes out the meaning of the term theopneustos (“breathed out by God”) from 2 Timothy 3.16. Through careful exegesis Packer shows the Bible to be the product of God’s inspiring activity working through the various Biblical writers’ cast of mind, outlook, temperament, interests, literary habits and stylistic idiosyncrasies to bring about the textual revelation of Scripture. God is sovereign over (what Packer calls) this “concursive” process and so is in no way frustrated by the sinfulness and humanity of the Biblical authors. Scripture is thus fully human and fully divine. Providence and the free agency of man harmonise to produce the revelation of Scripture. A denial of this truth is primarily rooted in a stunted, limited doctrine of God that is built on a deistic conception of his deity. The god of rationalistic liberalism is an anaemic, weak deity or “super-force” who cannot address human kind or intervene in the mechanics of world-events. Because such a god cannot speak or act, the Scriptures are seen as purely human constructions; the distilled reflections of man’s religious genius and nothing more. If God cannot act and if God cannot speak, the Biblical witness is human, all too human. It is little more than compelling and enigmatic literature.
This idea that Scripture is an entirely human construct built on merely human reflection and speculation on experience is a major tenet of liberal Protestantism. But, as Packer writes, no amount of human speculation could ever make real sense of Jesus Christ the Man (to pick a single example; the same applies to any major event of revelation in the Bible). The Bible is thus more properly understood as an inspired record of history; God’s actions in history being bound up with the words he inspired to interpret them.
Scripture is a complex, self-interpreting organism containing every conceivable literary genre. Packer asserts that only an evangelical viewpoint of revelation can properly do justice to the wealth of Biblical literature and revelation. Far from cramping exegetical style, the evangelical hermeneutic should liberate it, for only the standpoint of evangelical tradition enables Scripture to speak with suitable authority. The evangelical hermeneutic encourages a posture of obedient listening to the text of Scripture. Thereby, spiritual change in human hearts is brought about. The end result is dynamic transformation; individual lives and whole communities are transformed as the Word of God is heard.
In contrast, liberalism places the ultimate emphasis on the role of unaided human reason (separated from believing faith) as the sole interpreter of Scripture. The intellectual schema of the detached “objective” cogito ascertaining “pure facts” defined the scholarly project of modernity (which in turn under-girded the development of theological liberalism.) Ironically however, our human reasoning faculties are loaded with undetected prejudice and bias. As has been indicated time and again, the idea of pure intellectual detachment yielding objective truth through unaided reason is a mere myth. Instead of guiding people into a deeper grasp of the Biblical truth, unaided human reason more often than not merely ends up emasculating it and shaping it according to the fashionable intellectual whims of the age. The end result is an all-out silencing of the voice of Scripture; the gagging of God.
As I read “”Fundamentalism” and the Word of God” I particularly admired Packer’s ability to so effortlessly unmask the presuppositions bound into the liberal project of Biblical interpretation. So often, evangelicals are castigated for holding to a blinkered and prejudiced approach to Biblical interpretation. In fact, however, as Packer reveals, the evangelical hermeneutic is more properly “catholic” in orientation and far more loyal to the tradition of the church. It is not a recent fashion that emerged after the Enlightenment as a defensive response to the emergence of historio-critical approaches to Scripture (as many suppose). Every major Christian theologian through the ages has held to what might be identified as an evangelical approach to Biblical interpretation. As such, as Packer reveals, it is actually the liberal project which is the anomaly, having sprung up in its modern form during the nineteenth century.
Furthermore, at heart, liberalism revolves on a faith bias insofar as its advocates spurn the Bible’s own witness to itself as God’s authoritative revelation. Rather than trust the witness of Scripture and accept it as God’s revealed Word, liberalism puts its faith in autonomous human reason (exalted over humble, believing faith and the veracity of the Biblical record.) The result is a multitude of different theologies and systems of interpretation that ultimately fog up the Biblical accounts under various trends of philosophical thought. As Packer writes, reason must be put to the service of believing faith. Otherwise, it becomes irrational. This insight rings true of so many liberal trends of Biblical interpretation. Packer builds up to a damning indictment of liberal theology, claiming it works with a stunted rationality that actually weakens the intellectual life of the church.
Following on from this critique of liberal trends of interpretation, Packer encourages an approach to Scripture that springs from “reasoning faith”. I was heartened by Packer’s plea for careful and constructive thought that applies Biblical truth to the whole of life. Such an enterprise is crucial. The duty to effectively communicate God’s truth involves the duty to think hard. This involves reasoning (Paul provides a good example in Acts 17.16-33 when he preaches in Athens[1]) in an effort to get across Biblical concepts in a language that is comprehensible within contemporary culture and yet does not deny the gospel. After all, Biblical revelation is predominantly given in terms of near Eastern culture and thought forms; it is necessary to do the work of translating it into the thought patterns of contemporary culture.
Packer writes, “…it is through the ferment of thought created by such interaction that theological insight is deepened and the relevance of the gospel more fully grasped” (p. 135). I heartily agree. Indeed, since the publication of “”Fundamentalism” and the Word of God” (1958), the term “fundamentalism” as a by-word for anti-intellectualism has to some extent been superseded by the term “evangelical”, at least in my experience. Bibliolatry, bigotry, unthinking dogmatism and shallow theology are conflated under the term “evangelical” – at least, it was by some of my university peers. I believe that on some level this is a justified critique. Quite simply, the hearty and vibrant thought and reflection Packer calls for, the kind of thinking that relates Biblical truth to every aspect of social, cultural, historical, political, philosophical and scientific reality (as well as to the arts) is lacking in a good amount of contemporary evangelical life and thought.[2] Packer admits recognition of this trait in the evangelical circles of his own period. The pairing of evangelicalism and anti-intellectualism is an unhealthy and unwarranted development that is ill-at-odds with a thoroughly Biblical Christian witness in the world.
As Packer suggests, a vibrant faith (and reliance on the Bible as the Word of God) does not necessarily negate or undermine vibrant, vital thinking and critical reflection. If any tradition can claim intellectual credibility, it is evangelicalism. The theological ancestry of evangelicalism is rooted in the thought of giants like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Jonathan Edwards and John Wesley. Evangelical thought (because it springs from the Reformation revolution) has properly resolved the dual role of reason and faith and how they ought to compliment one another on the basis of prior divine illumination. This complimentary relationship between reason and faith is fostered only by a proper understanding of Biblical revelation. Liberalism on the other hand is “wedded to axioms which represent a lapse into unbelief” (p. 142) and therefore estrangement from God. As such, it must (and inevitably does) lapse into intellectual short-falls and error.
Overall, I was encouraged by Packer’s estimate of the vitality of the evangelical tradition, which despite so many protestations to the contrary, is in fact a treasure trove of so much formative and ground-breaking thought. To be thoroughly evangelical, then, does not demand a wholesale abandonment of contemporary thought and culture, but the opposite; a robust engagement that seeks to redeem it for the glory of Christ.
Accordingly, the evangelical opposition to liberalism is absolutely not based on irrationality or lack of intellectual depth. Rather, the opposite is the case. It is precisely because evangelicalism contains a deeper, truer and more rational estimate of Scripture, that it must stand against liberal trends of interpretation. Packer helped me to see that. Indeed, a thorough-going liberalism collapses under itself; by evacuating Scripture of its historical veracity and theological truth, it leaves only a single option for the basis of belief – a will to “leap into the dark” without any basis on evidence. Such is a true abdication of the use of the mind.
Finally, Packer helped me to realise that repentance follows through on the intellectual level. It is possible to be in intellectual revolt against the God of the Bible. Such a stance is embodied in an unnecessarily sceptical and wise-ass approach to Biblical truth, which seeks to force it into a prior mould borrowed from agnostic trends of contemporary thought. I know that I have been guilty of this although I have often conveniently ignored it. At root, as Packer makes clear, all intellectual pride emerges from a prior flouting of God’s authority, a refusal to submit both the heart and mind to Christ in willing obedience and love. If our thinking is to be properly and truly doxological, we must first submit to the God who is there: the God who has spoken and revealed himself through his Word.
[1] Jesus himself, according to Bernard Ramm (The Pattern of Authority, Eerdmans, 1957, pp.51) – cited by Packer on pp. 93 – appealed to logic: “With reference to logical forms our Lord used analogy, Luke xi.13; reduction ad absurdum, Matt. xii.26; excluded middle, Matt. xii. 30; a fortiori, Matt. Xii. 1-8; implication, Matt. xii. 28; and the law of non-contradiction, Luke vi. 39.”
[2] Perhaps this is an overstatement: there is much in the way of evangelical engagement with critical thought and contemporary culture in the work of a long list of writers and scholars like D A Carson, Tim Keller, N T Wright, John Frame, William Lane Craig, William Alston, Alvin Plantinga, Kevin Vanhoozer, Stephen N Williams…to name but a few working in different realms of thought.
""Fundamentalism and the Word of God" (Eerdmans, 1958) by J. I Packer: A Review
Packer’s treatment of the topic of “fundamentalism” and the Bible opens up into a comprehensive engagement with the evangelical doctrine of Scripture and the contrasting trends of liberalism, which effectively rob Scripture of its authority and internal coherence. He shows up the often unexamined assumptions that underlie so much seemingly “scientific” criticism of Scripture and the inconsistencies bound into the liberal stance on the place and authority of Scripture.
Early on, Packer disregards the term “fundamentalism” as being unhelpful insofar as it is a term often used to convey and cover up opposition to the evangelical stance on the authority of the Bible. It is more often than not bound up in rhetoric and thus encourages emotional responses as opposed to clarity. Moving on from this point, Packer identifies authority as the main issue underpinning so much debate on the nature of Scripture. Essentially, he writes, there are only three possible views of the Bible; the evangelical, traditionalist and subjectivist viewpoints. Only the evangelical approach coheres with the texture of Scriptural authority and is thus in accord with apostolic tradition and Christ’s own view of the Scriptures. Scripture, on the basis of the evangelical view, is the rule of faith and life. The theological method Christ demands of the church must conform to the pattern of the Scriptures themselves; reason and human thought is thus to be shaped by the authority and witness of Scripture.
This is in direct contrast to the subjectivist approach to the Bible (the only real alternative to the evangelical standpoint) which is based primarily on the acceptance of the conclusions of nineteenth century critical Bible study. Such a viewpoint demands that Scripture errs at various points and must therefore be interpreted effectively by discerning scholars. Therefore, only Scripture that is pruned by human reason remains authoritative and not necessarily Scripture itself. The supreme authority is human reason; critical rationalism becomes the conduit of divine revelation. This approach underpins the subjectivist project, which is the staple methodology of liberalism.
In response to such a viewpoint, Packer unfurls a properly Biblical view of Scripture. He fleshes out the meaning of the term theopneustos (“breathed out by God”) from 2 Timothy 3.16. Through careful exegesis Packer shows the Bible to be the product of God’s inspiring activity working through the various Biblical writers’ cast of mind, outlook, temperament, interests, literary habits and stylistic idiosyncrasies to bring about the textual revelation of Scripture. God is sovereign over (what Packer calls) this “concursive” process and so is in no way frustrated by the sinfulness and humanity of the Biblical authors. Scripture is thus fully human and fully divine. Providence and the free agency of man harmonise to produce the revelation of Scripture. A denial of this truth is primarily rooted in a stunted, limited doctrine of God that is built on a deistic conception of his deity. The god of rationalistic liberalism is an anaemic, weak deity or “super-force” who cannot address human kind or intervene in the mechanics of world-events. Because such a god cannot speak or act, the Scriptures are seen as purely human constructions; the distilled reflections of man’s religious genius and nothing more. If God cannot act and if God cannot speak, the Biblical witness is human, all too human. It is little more than compelling and enigmatic literature.
This idea that Scripture is an entirely human construct built on merely human reflection and speculation on experience is a major tenet of liberal Protestantism. But, as Packer writes, no amount of human speculation could ever make real sense of Jesus Christ the Man (to pick a single example; the same applies to any major event of revelation in the Bible). The Bible is thus more properly understood as an inspired record of history; God’s actions in history being bound up with the words he inspired to interpret them.
Scripture is a complex, self-interpreting organism containing every conceivable literary genre. Packer asserts that only an evangelical viewpoint of revelation can properly do justice to the wealth of Biblical literature and revelation. Far from cramping exegetical style, the evangelical hermeneutic should liberate it, for only the standpoint of evangelical tradition enables Scripture to speak with suitable authority. The evangelical hermeneutic encourages a posture of obedient listening to the text of Scripture. Thereby, spiritual change in human hearts is brought about. The end result is dynamic transformation; individual lives and whole communities are transformed as the Word of God is heard.
In contrast, liberalism places the ultimate emphasis on the role of unaided human reason (separated from believing faith) as the sole interpreter of Scripture. The intellectual schema of the detached “objective” cogito ascertaining “pure facts” defined the scholarly project of modernity (which in turn under-girded the development of theological liberalism.) Ironically however, our human reasoning faculties are loaded with undetected prejudice and bias. As has been indicated time and again, the idea of pure intellectual detachment yielding objective truth through unaided reason is a mere myth. Instead of guiding people into a deeper grasp of the Biblical truth, unaided human reason more often than not merely ends up emasculating it and shaping it according to the fashionable intellectual whims of the age. The end result is an all-out silencing of the voice of Scripture; the gagging of God.
As I read “”Fundamentalism” and the Word of God” I particularly admired Packer’s ability to so effortlessly unmask the presuppositions bound into the liberal project of Biblical interpretation. So often, evangelicals are castigated for holding to a blinkered and prejudiced approach to Biblical interpretation. In fact, however, as Packer reveals, the evangelical hermeneutic is more properly “catholic” in orientation and far more loyal to the tradition of the church. It is not a recent fashion that emerged after the Enlightenment as a defensive response to the emergence of historio-critical approaches to Scripture (as many suppose). Every major Christian theologian through the ages has held to what might be identified as an evangelical approach to Biblical interpretation. As such, as Packer reveals, it is actually the liberal project which is the anomaly, having sprung up in its modern form during the nineteenth century.
Furthermore, at heart, liberalism revolves on a faith bias insofar as its advocates spurn the Bible’s own witness to itself as God’s authoritative revelation. Rather than trust the witness of Scripture and accept it as God’s revealed Word, liberalism puts its faith in autonomous human reason (exalted over humble, believing faith and the veracity of the Biblical record.) The result is a multitude of different theologies and systems of interpretation that ultimately fog up the Biblical accounts under various trends of philosophical thought. As Packer writes, reason must be put to the service of believing faith. Otherwise, it becomes irrational. This insight rings true of so many liberal trends of Biblical interpretation. Packer builds up to a damning indictment of liberal theology, claiming it works with a stunted rationality that actually weakens the intellectual life of the church.
Following on from this critique of liberal trends of interpretation, Packer encourages an approach to Scripture that springs from “reasoning faith”. I was heartened by Packer’s plea for careful and constructive thought that applies Biblical truth to the whole of life. Such an enterprise is crucial. The duty to effectively communicate God’s truth involves the duty to think hard. This involves reasoning (Paul provides a good example in Acts 17.16-33 when he preaches in Athens[1]) in an effort to get across Biblical concepts in a language that is comprehensible within contemporary culture and yet does not deny the gospel. After all, Biblical revelation is predominantly given in terms of near Eastern culture and thought forms; it is necessary to do the work of translating it into the thought patterns of contemporary culture.
Packer writes, “…it is through the ferment of thought created by such interaction that theological insight is deepened and the relevance of the gospel more fully grasped” (p. 135). I heartily agree. Indeed, since the publication of “”Fundamentalism” and the Word of God” (1958), the term “fundamentalism” as a by-word for anti-intellectualism has to some extent been superseded by the term “evangelical”, at least in my experience. Bibliolatry, bigotry, unthinking dogmatism and shallow theology are conflated under the term “evangelical” – at least, it was by some of my university peers. I believe that on some level this is a justified critique. Quite simply, the hearty and vibrant thought and reflection Packer calls for, the kind of thinking that relates Biblical truth to every aspect of social, cultural, historical, political, philosophical and scientific reality (as well as to the arts) is lacking in a good amount of contemporary evangelical life and thought.[2] Packer admits recognition of this trait in the evangelical circles of his own period. The pairing of evangelicalism and anti-intellectualism is an unhealthy and unwarranted development that is ill-at-odds with a thoroughly Biblical Christian witness in the world.
As Packer suggests, a vibrant faith (and reliance on the Bible as the Word of God) does not necessarily negate or undermine vibrant, vital thinking and critical reflection. If any tradition can claim intellectual credibility, it is evangelicalism. The theological ancestry of evangelicalism is rooted in the thought of giants like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Jonathan Edwards and John Wesley. Evangelical thought (because it springs from the Reformation revolution) has properly resolved the dual role of reason and faith and how they ought to compliment one another on the basis of prior divine illumination. This complimentary relationship between reason and faith is fostered only by a proper understanding of Biblical revelation. Liberalism on the other hand is “wedded to axioms which represent a lapse into unbelief” (p. 142) and therefore estrangement from God. As such, it must (and inevitably does) lapse into intellectual short-falls and error.
Overall, I was encouraged by Packer’s estimate of the vitality of the evangelical tradition, which despite so many protestations to the contrary, is in fact a treasure trove of so much formative and ground-breaking thought. To be thoroughly evangelical, then, does not demand a wholesale abandonment of contemporary thought and culture, but the opposite; a robust engagement that seeks to redeem it for the glory of Christ.
Accordingly, the evangelical opposition to liberalism is absolutely not based on irrationality or lack of intellectual depth. Rather, the opposite is the case. It is precisely because evangelicalism contains a deeper, truer and more rational estimate of Scripture, that it must stand against liberal trends of interpretation. Packer helped me to see that. Indeed, a thorough-going liberalism collapses under itself; by evacuating Scripture of its historical veracity and theological truth, it leaves only a single option for the basis of belief – a will to “leap into the dark” without any basis on evidence. Such is a true abdication of the use of the mind.
Finally, Packer helped me to realise that repentance follows through on the intellectual level. It is possible to be in intellectual revolt against the God of the Bible. Such a stance is embodied in an unnecessarily sceptical and wise-ass approach to Biblical truth, which seeks to force it into a prior mould borrowed from agnostic trends of contemporary thought. I know that I have been guilty of this although I have often conveniently ignored it. At root, as Packer makes clear, all intellectual pride emerges from a prior flouting of God’s authority, a refusal to submit both the heart and mind to Christ in willing obedience and love. If our thinking is to be properly and truly doxological, we must first submit to the God who is there: the God who has spoken and revealed himself through his Word.
[1] Jesus himself, according to Bernard Ramm (The Pattern of Authority, Eerdmans, 1957, pp.51) – cited by Packer on pp. 93 – appealed to logic: “With reference to logical forms our Lord used analogy, Luke xi.13; reduction ad absurdum, Matt. xii.26; excluded middle, Matt. xii. 30; a fortiori, Matt. Xii. 1-8; implication, Matt. xii. 28; and the law of non-contradiction, Luke vi. 39.”
[2] Perhaps this is an overstatement: there is much in the way of evangelical engagement with critical thought and contemporary culture in the work of a long list of writers and scholars like D A Carson, Tim Keller, N T Wright, John Frame, William Lane Craig, William Alston, Alvin Plantinga, Kevin Vanhoozer, Stephen N Williams…to name but a few working in different realms of thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)