Rants Against Modern Evangelicalism: Part II

Ok, so this is a response, or rather a follow up, from my last post. That is to say, I have more to say, and I believe I need to clarify my previous assertions.

In my last post, I ranted about how the modern evangelical seems to have no desire to pursue knowledge of God in theology, church history, Biblical studies, etc. And those who do seem content in pursuing their own specific beliefs seem content in never attending to the claims of other theological systems or ideas. Calvinists study Calvinism; Pentecostals study Pentecostal theology, etc. How often do you see a Calvinist exploring Wesley, or a Pentecostal reading McArthur, or a fundamentalist studying Karl Barth? Not too often. And I believe this is sad, and shows a lack of unity in the church. God forbid that we even study other belief systems like Islam or Hinduism to know what they claim!

That is what I said. This is what I did not say. I did not say that the main problem in the church is a lack of academic knowledge of God. I did not say that this academic knowledge would automatically bring people to a greater intimacy with God (or as Victoria would put, Knowledge as opposed to knowledge).

I have been learning about a concept called the self-authenticating nature of Scripture. I am not sure if this is a new concept to me, or if it is just putting words to beliefs I have always held. It is fairly reformed in its basis, though I am not sure it has to be. Regardless, it is that Scripture is true because it is true. That is, Scripture is true because it proves itself to be true to the believer in experience. So, what this is going against is the main notion that Scripture is true because it proves itself to be true through textual integrity, historical proof, archaelogical evidence, and rational thought. These things indeed, Calvin would say, have their role. However, they are not the ultimate and authoritative test by which Scripture is judged. The only legitimate judge of Scripture is the Holy Spirit, who is appropriately the author of Scripture. All other tests and proofs are secondary.

This would fall into a belief of presuppositionalism. I do not know much about this, other than the fact that it claims that to be a Christian or non-Christian, one has certain presuppositions that cannot be proven or argued against. Therefore, one cannot just argue someone to a belief in one or the other. I would like Caleb to post in response to this in how I slaughtered explaining this belief.

Anyways, this hangs true in evangelism in that the Holy Spirit converts people, not us. And He must self-authenticate his Scripture in the life of someone to make them a believer. He can use apologetics to do this, or love and good deeds, but none of these are saving the person, nor are they even the reason the person believes, but rather that act of self-authentication.

How does this apply to my earlier discussion? I was riding in the car with my roommate and asked him about this. I was talking with a girl at this house who is struggling with her belief that Scripture is true. She is a person who is committed to social justice and willing to go to extremes to do what is right (I call her a hippy just for my sake; living in intentional community, etc.). I asked my roommate that if all things were constant (like in our scientific process) except knowledge about God (theology, church history, etc.) would the person who knows more be more intimate with God. The conversation went around in circles.

Now most of the people that I know that are really intimate with God care about pursuing knowledge about God. So does knowledge spur on intimacy, or intimacy knowledge. Since I know others who know a lot but are not intimate, I would assume intimacy spurs on knowledge. I told my friend that I felt like knowledge of God was like an assortment of tools. The more knowledge, the better and more complex the tools are. The purpose is making a building, which is the equivalent in my analogy of building a building. Someone with better tools can build something great. They can also cut off their arm with a cyber saw, so knowledge is creative and great and also destructive and scary. I don't know if this analogy is that good though. Does someone with less knowledge actually unable to be as intimate with God as someone with more. If so, that seems extreme. If not, why pursue knowledge? See, I told you this thing was cyclical.

In the end, this applies to my earlier conversation in what the church needs is more intimacy with God. I know from being a Bible/theology student the last 4+ years is that you can both be learning a lot about God and be far from Him. The church needs more intimacy and experience of God. But they need to pursue this through knowing about Him, and not just empty experience. Experience should be enriched by knowledge, and this is rare. A lack of knowledge seems to result in empty emotion, and an abundance of knowledge seems to often result in cynicism and unbelief. However, there are those who have rich, intimate relationship with the Lord and increasing knowledge of Him, and this is beautiful, and what I want to see in the church and myself.

Again, this is a rant, and may not be as linear as I would like. Please respond, I want to know your thoughts!