The Patronage Theory Of Biblical Inspiration

What Does "Theory of Biblical Inspiration" Mean?

The inspiration of the Bible is an interesting topic. The precise way God revealed Himself through Scripture isn't quite as clear as in Islam or Mormonism, which simply has an angel showing up, and telling Smith and Muhammad what to write. However, we have no such story when it comes to our Scripture. The closest we have is Moses on Mt Sinai, and even that doesn't translate over to a specific book of the Bible, let alone the entire canon. This makes it difficult to say exactly what is meant by inspiration.

Yet we insist that it is inspired, and rightly so. And we know basically what that means, and what it entails. To say that the Bible is inspired is to say that God has ordained the content of the Bible. The Bible says what it says because it is what God wanted it to say. And this entails certain properties: authority, infallibility, and holiness to name a few.

But that still leaves the question, by what process did God bring the Bible about, and how does the Bible come to possess those attributes. That is what we mean by the "theory of inspiration".

It is important to recognize that the theory of inspiration does not inform us of what attributes the Bible has. Rather, it seeks to explain the origin of the attributes we know to be there. The authority of Scripture is epistemically prior to the theory of inspiration, and if your theory does not justify a particular feature of Scripture, we reject the theory, not the attribute.

Now for those who are interested in what I mean by the "Patronage Theory", skip to the last to sections.

What Properties Does the Bible Have?

Ultimately, when we say that the Bible is inspired, what we really want to say is that the Bible is authoritative because it comes from God. But this also implies that the Bible has certain attributes. So, what a theory of inspiration has to do is fully and naturally account for all of those attributes.

So, what attributes does the Bible have? Well first of all, the Bible is holy. Holy means that something is set apart in an honorable sense. It is established to be for something important. Generally, what we mean by holy is that it is set apart for God. So, the Bible is different from other books. And we understand this difference to be connected to the idea that in some sense it comes from God. So, the holiness of the Scripture describes two attributes: that the Bible is unique, and that the Bible has a divine origin.

Second, we have the scope of the inspiration. We say that every single word of the Bible is part of that inspiration. This means that all of the Bible has these properties, not just some. It isn’t as if Matthew, Mark, and Luke are inspired but John is just a really interesting expansion of their ideas. All of the Bible is included. The word for this is plenary, or complete. But this also goes down to the very word choice.

1.       Holy/unique

2.       Holy/Divine origin

3.       Verbal

4.       Plenary/complete

5.       Confluent

Alternate Theories

Dictation

The dictation theory of inspiration is the view that God has told the authors of Scripture precisely what to write. Now dictation in the most literal sense is clearly inaccurate. The text of Scripture clearly isn’t not always written in the Lord’s voice.

Most who ascribe to a dictation theory usually hold to something called accommodationism. On this view, not only does God directly determine each word that goes into Scripture, He intentionally does so in such a way that we can better understand. So instead of giving us direct statements, like in the prophets, He communicates in a variety of different genres in the authors’ voice so that we could better understand and accept what it is that is being communicated.

Dictation hits most of the checkmarks of our list above. Indeed, it is the most natural theory to explain the properties of verbal and completeness. However, it doesn’t sufficiently account for confluence. While accommodationism does dull that problem a little bit, it is only a little bit. After all, we are not just dealing with the mere simplification of language or selection of genre, but the authors’ personal sentiments and passions being included within the text. You would have to limit your conception of confluence to such a point that it seems a mere charade than an actual property.

Providential

A providential view of inspiration is when one uses the features of one’s general view of providence to explain the properties of scripture. This is popular among determinists and Molinists. Again, this checks most of the boxes. Because providence views everything that happens as planned by God in some regard, it can than say that each word of God is planned by God in the same way. Therefore, God can simply make sure that the words are what they are supposed to be.

Additionally, it explains confluence. After all, if everything we say or do belongs to use, and yet falls under God’s providence, then it follows the text of Scripture can be properly ascribed to the Biblical authors while falling under God’s problem as well.

However, the think the principle problem is that it doesn’t account for the uniqueness of Scripture. At the end of the day, there is no difference, providentially, between the writing of Romans, Pride & Prejudice, and Percy Jackson. In this sense, providence can be a feature in an inspiration theory, and can be used to prop any theory up really, but it is insufficient.

Supervision

The supervision theory is the belief that the human authors are the ones who are writing the text, but God oversees the process. So, God is giving advice, and commanding the person to change something if they get it wrong, etc. Now, this nails both the uniqueness and confluence properties that the formal views failed in. However, there seems to be some difficulty in explaining how exactly inspiration is verbal. How is every word considered to come from God if it is the human that is actually coming up with the words?

Personally, I think this can be overcome just by having God’s supervision be more intimate. It isn’t as if God has to go into the other room, wait until the author is done, and then see how He did. If He is every present, then every word that the author puts into the text is approved of by Him. Also, God would be directly saying, “don’t forget to say this.” Indeed, we can simply combine this theory with a providential theory pretty easily and get the best of both worlds. In the end, I think this view has it pretty close. My view is similar, but it does add some additional components that I believe shore up the verbal component.

The Patronage Theory

So, I think the Patronage Theory is pretty simple, but at its core is the understanding that canonization is not separate from inspiration, but is part of it.

Canonization is the process by which a text is recognized as belonging to the biblical canon. Generally, this is considered separate from inspiration, where inspiration is understood as the God governing the writing of the text, and the canonization is how the Holy Spirit helps the church to recognize which texts are inspired.

But if one thinks about it, our assurance of the Bible is actually more dependent on the canonization process than it is the writing process. Now the writing process is important too, for otherwise we cannot say that it is of divine origin. But in terms of authority, canonization has to be given a great deal more attention. After all, if God inspires a text to be written, but it is not included in the canon, what good is that to us? Likewise, if a text in included in the canon but is not inspired, then our trust in it is misplaced, even if it is properly placed in God’s ability to inspire. So, both need to be included.

So, what is the theory? Let us start with an analogy. Back during the Renaissance, if an artist wanted to make money, they would usually be commissioned by a patron. The patron may come to the painter and say, “I would like a painting on The Last Supper”. The artist would accept the commission and begin to paint for what his patron wanted. Afterwards, if the patron liked the painting, he’d pay for it. A more modern example of the patronage relationship could be the relationship between the producer and the director of a movie. What is especially interesting is that both the producer and the director often get credit for the vision of a movie.

However, a second analogy is a bit closer. Imagine that you are in a class, and the teacher assigns a writing assignment. She tells you what she wants you to write, and sets the parameters within which you are expected to work. You then get to work writing the text. Now occasionally you’ll go to the teacher asking for assistance. Also, the teacher asks to see the rough draft of the paper to make sure that you are on the right track. After you hand in your paper, the teacher comes up to you and says that your paper made absolutely no mistakes, and she’ll like to keep it as an example to show her future students what it is that she is looking for. 

The idea is that there are three steps. First there is the commissioning of the text. God comes to the author of the book and tells them that He wants them to write a text, and what it is He wants them to write about and how. This is done through the internal witness of the Spirit of course, but for the sake of simplicity I won’t keep making this caveat.

The second step is the actual writing process. Here the author is writing what God told him to write. But God is still present, so assuming the author is writing in a state a prayer (a pretty safe assumption I’d say), then God would be consistently correcting any mistakes that He may see. While the author is still the one doing the writing, the Holy Spirit is speaking with him, ensuring that there are no mistakes.

The third step is the acceptance from the patron. This is when God is satisfied enough with the work that He wants to preserve it for generations that follow. Here the Holy Spirit is at work within His people, preserving the text, and inspiring them to recognize His fingerprints upon it.

Stacking It Up with Our Criteria

This theory, in my opinion, holds up to the above criteria better than the other theories we mentioned. Additionally, it is not ad hoc either, but rather a fairly simple understanding based off of seeing how things are done in other contexts. So, let’s look at our criteria and see how well it does

1. Holy/Unique- Only the Biblical texts can be considered to be both originated from God on this theory, and to have been approved by the Spirit in canonization. Because only the Bible is commissioned in the way described above, and preserved in the way described above, it is distinct from all other forms of writing.
2. Holy/Divine Origin- It is divine in origin because it is commissioned by God, and God is guiding the writers as they are writing the text.
3. Verbal- While the exact language is chosen by the human authors, every word is approved of by God, or He would not have excepted it as canon. Therefore, we can be confident that every word choice communicates what God wants communicated.
4. Plenary- This is applied to the canonization process. Because the canonization is part of the theory, all of the Bible is naturally implied by the theory.
5. Confluence- And here is where I think the theory really shines. Unlike the dictation theory, confluence would be expected from this theory, since the writers really are writing the books.

So, I would argue that patronage theory of inspiration naturally leads to all the attributes of Scripture rather than just some of them. I would also add that the theory will work with any theory of providence: Determinism, Libertarianism, Molinism, or even open theism. It doesn’t presuppose how providence works, only that the Spirit is guiding those involved in the process. This is something that I also think is a strength of the theory.

So, I want to end with something funny, or clever, but I can’t come up with anything: there. That’s the patronage theory of biblical inspiration and you should all believe it because it’s right. 

Essential Doctrine

This is actually a topic that I have thought a lot about. Like I said in the last post, there has been a discussion going around about the nature of orthodoxy and the concept of essential doctrine. The basic definition of essential doctrine would be as follows:

Essential Doctrine: Those ideas and beliefs which define the core of Christian thought; those ideas and beliefs where the rejection of such places one outside Christianity

As I have attempted to understand the essentialness of doctrine, I have determined that the importance of a particular idea may depend upon context. Therefore, I have identified, so far, 3 different arenas where essentialness comes into play, and the means of classifying what belongs within those categories.

(I may note that I seem to use the words context and category interchangeably in this post. In reality, these are categories that are defined by context, and therefore there is a one-to-one relationship between them. The names that I provide as the subject headings are the categories. The contexts are what defines these categories)

Soteriologically Essential Doctrine

I have tried and tried to come up with a less obfuscating word for this, but so far I've failed. Personally and Individually carry connotations that I do not intend, and Salvificly would imply a sort of gnosticism (saved by knowledge). In either case, I'm stuck with this term till either I find a better one, or someone suggests a better one.

The basic concept of soteriologically essential doctrines is that they are doctrines which are necessary for a person to believe in order to be considered a Christian. But what is necessary for one to believe in order to be Christian?

Examining the early church, we see the basic Christian creed was "Jesus is Lord" (Romans 10:9 and I Corinthians 12:3). This was a much stronger statement then we often give it credit for. The Jews refused to say the name of God and instead say "Adonai" (my Lord). Thus, to the Jew, calling Jesus Lord was saying that Jesus was Yahweh! Meanwhile, the title "Lord" was also used by the Roman Caesar cult in order to demonstrate one's political loyalties. Thus, the claim that Jesus is Lord said to the Greek that Jesus is Lord instead of Caesar, and that a Christian's loyalty to Christ was higher than their loyalty to Rome.

But in our day, our most basic creed would be "Jesus is Lord and Savior". Personally, I think that this is a rather powerful creed, and worth the dignity of the basic Christian belief. Though the early church did not include Savior in its creed, there also was no one else vying for the title. In today's world, it is precisely these two aspects of Christ's identity that are most at stake.

Additionally, if we take the Romans passage I mentioned earlier as our standard, then it is also important to understand and affirm the Christ event. Paul points to the resurrection, which is at the heart of the Christ event, but I believe this would also include Christ's birth (the incarnation), Christ's death, and Christ's return (especially the concept of our own resurrection). The details are not what is really important, but the essence of what the Christ event was and means.

If you don't not believe in these things, than you are simply not a Christian. There is no way around this. Others may want to propose other doctrines on this list, but I don't think they are as necessary. Cosmology, Ecclesiology, Pneumatology, or even Soteriology and Eschatology do not come close to defining what it means to be "Christian" more than Christology. Who is Christ? What did He do? What does that mean to me? Do I trust Him? Do I obey Him? These are the questions which are fundamental to our own Christian identity and any other belief, if it is wrong, can be corrected by the Spirit if we get those questions right! This is my belief, because in the end, our salvation is grounded in faith in Christ: in who He is and what He has done. Anything else is gnostic.

To this, I can propose this concrete list of doctrines (no particular order) that I do believe one needs to believe to be Christian, but it is important to note that I do not believe confession in this list is the basis of orthodoxy or salvation. Merely that these doctrines must be present:

1. Monotheism
2. Jesus is the one Son of God/Christ
3. Jesus is God incarnate (both divine and human)
   
4. All of mankind is on a path to destruction
5. Jesus died on the cross as a means of saving humanity
6. 3 days later, Jesus rose from the dead
7. If we place our faith in Him, we will rise from the dead as well, and live eternally

This list can easily be stretched out (I have done it before), but that is essentially what it means to be Christian.

Ecclesiastically Essential Doctrine

When we think of essential doctrine, I think this is the category that most of us really think of. The problem lies in treating this category like the first category. The confusing of these two contexts either causes an inappropriate level of openness in church doctrine, or an oppressive pharisaic treatment of the laity.

One cannot expect every person to be an expert on doctrine and the faith. It is just impractical and unreasonable. To some degree, someone has to be a Christian before they can be a mature Christian. Part of this maturity is coming to a deeper understanding of Christian faith, and on an individual level, this category of doctrine marks some mandatory maturing marks in the Christian walk, but such a thing could hardly be called essential.

I call it ecclesiastically essential because these are things that are essential for the church to understand and teach. Pastors should believe this, as well as any teachers and leaders. Any church must believe in these if it is going to be able to propagate and grow true Christians. One reader of this blog (he can name himself if he likes) said once that you can find Christians in the most unlikely places. This is true, but it is important to distinguish the Christianity of the person and the Christianity of the place. We should not "baptize" an institution just because we might find a Christian within in it in spite of what it teaches.

The question is, does this body produce Christians?Does it help Christians to grow closer to God? Is it keeping them focused on the Christ? Is it protecting them from false doctrine? It is this last one where we get the closest to essential doctrine. But in the end, departure from ecclesiastical essential doctrine doesn't condemn a person, or even a group. What it does it is cripples that groups ability to present a proper and sustainable worldview. It does not immediately cause a downfall, but it will lead to one if left uncorrected and will definitely hurt the immature persons within the group.

Much like the heart of defining soteriologically essential doctrines is understanding Christ, the heart of this is understanding the canon. The word "canon" simply means rule, or a standard. In this case, it means the standard of the faith. This is not simply Scripture, but also understand the Rule of Faith, the nature of Christianity. But this most certainly does imply Scripture as well.

I'm sure many may argue that the belief that Scripture is authoritative belongs in the first category, but to those I ask you to hear me out. Salvation rests on Christ, not the Scripture. Scripture is important because it points to Christ. Indeed, in evangelism, the goal isn't to get someone to read and appreciate the book, but introducing them to Christ. However, the bible was compiled as a rule of faith, as a canon, and as such it represents the fundamental witness of what it means to be a Christian. Therefore, some affirmation of its authority (though infallibility or inerrancy would be unnecessary for this) would be necessary if a Church is really going to remain Christian. It must affirm the basic Christian witness.

Another important factor is the Spirit. Having an understanding of the guidance of the Spirit is absolutely essential to Christian living. Tied in with this comes an understanding of the relationship between the Father, Son, and the Spirit.

[Quick side note. I go back and forth between putting a belief in the Trinity in the first category or this one. In the end, I believe it should be this one, since I don't think we can rightly demand every member of the church to appreciate the concept of tri-unity. On the other hand, I am convinced that no body can rightly be considered Christian without a concept of the Trinity. Considering this, I currently place it here.]

Beyond this, I must decline from offering a list. There are many more doctrines I could include here, which to some degree is the problem. Such a list would be quite long, and part of the reason for this differentiation is to keep the first list short. If you wonder about whether I think a particular doctrine falls into this category, please ask.

Essential Distinctives

This is a new category which I named only last week, though the thought has been in my mind in embryonic form for much longer.

When I am referring to distinctives, I am referring to those particular thoughts and beliefs which are distinctively important to a particular church/denomination/era. To some degree we've all seen this where a particular church takes a stand on an issue that isn't definitive to Christianity. Many times they do this illegitimately by judging those outside of that church by that standard. But to some degree, you can't be a Baptist and baptize your baby, and you can't be a cessionist in Assemblies of God, or a Congregationist Catholic. When you belong to a particular group which is within the church, there may be doctrines which define that group, or subgroup.

This can also apply to eras. There was a need to take a stance on some Trinitarian issues in the first few centuries that some of us see as unimportant. But when you are active in a culture which was as metaphysically aware as the Greeks, you need to say things about metaphysics. There are stances on Scripture that needed to be made in the modern era which were unnecessary before. Same with cosmology. Much of the Creationist movement isn't about "This is how God did it", but really "Our God is the one who did it". How do you make this stance in a science obsessed culture? How can you be really sure you are making the right one?

This also applies to some individual churches. For instance, I'm a passionate Arminian, and I believe that Calvinism is a legitimate expression of Christianity, though wrong. Despite this, because I am going to be teaching Arminianism in my church, I can't promote to leadership someone who will teach otherwise. It would cause fractures in the church. Does this mean that I wouldn't let a Calvinist into my church? Of course not. I would even let that Calvinist actively try to change my mind. After all, he might. But if a person can't teach what I emphasize in my teaching, then to some degree the leadership needs to be united.

In another church, that may not be an issue. My pastor, for instance, is definitely Arminian, but he doesn't really understand the debate, so he doesn't take part in it. He could easily promote a Calvinist in his church, and I think that he should. However, he is also a strong Creationist, and would never promote someone that disagreed with him on that issue, where I would.

In the end, this point is a matter of unity. It is impossible for us all to agree on everything, but there are going to be particular doctrines where are important to particular groups that need to be believed in that group. Just like we can't all agree on what stance we should take on certain things, we also disagree on their importance, and we shouldn't judge a group or a particular leadership because they value something higher than we think they should. Instead, we should judge them on whether or not they take it outside of their "jurisdiction" so to speak.

I feel like this deserves some more clarity. These doctrines are not important in determining whether something is Christian, but they are important in dealing with leaders in the church. That is what this is about: leadership. It has nothing to do with membership. Just thought I should say that plainly.

Wrapping up

To place this in more clarity, this is a consideration of the essentialness of doctrine within three contexts: a person's salvation, the legitimacy of a church, and internal church politics. In other words: with a person, with a church, and within a church. What's important for each person is important for each church and what is important for each church is important within a church, but it never goes the opposite direction.

I feel like I should end this better. Oh well.

Orthos

In lieu of a some discussions happening over at New Ways Forward (What Is Unity Worth and Rule of Faith) and continued over at Dan Martin's site, I wanted to just add to the discussion to some degree. This will consist of two posts: one talking about the essential doctrines of Christendom, and this one regarding the concept of "right" Christianity.

The Orthos

The Greek word orthos means right, straight, or correct (which is used only once in Scripture, where Paul tells a crippled man to "stand straight"). For the sake of simplicity, we'll go with correct. So when I am discussing the orthos, what I mean is the right faith, or what is truly Christian.

Throughout Scripture we get a sense that there are many that claim to be Christian that are not. Jesus said:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
-Matthew 7:21-23

and John teaches us:

And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
-I John 2:3-6

And so we know that tests of Christian faith are appropriate, for the claim of Christ is not the same as being a follower of Christ. Therefore, the question is how should we test a person's orthos?

Orthodoxy

Orthodoxy means "right doctrine" or "correct teaching". To test a person's orthodoxy is to test a person's beliefs. Indeed, out of all the ways to test a person's orthos, this is the one we hear of the most, and is assumed within Protestant circles as the best way.

Naturally the best judge of orthodoxy is Scripture. I agree with the concept of Sola Scriptura as articulated by the magisterial reformers. In this view, Scripture is viewed as the only infallible teaching on the faith, though other teachers may be viewed as authoritative. What is known as the Rule of Faith, or the standard core of Christian testimony, character, and world-view, as articulated through the historical teachers of the Church acts as a guide to interpreting Scriptures. In defining this, Thomas Oden helps:

By orthodoxy I mean integrated biblical teaching as interpreted in its most consensual classic period. More simply put, orthodoxy is ancient consensual
scriptural teaching.
{Thomas Oden, The Rebirth of Orthodoxy, (New York, New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003) 29}

Like Dr. Oden, I am what has come to be known as paleo-orthodox, meaning that we seek orthodox understanding by examining the full breadth of Christian historical teaching, focusing on those areas which are held in consensus and are consistent with Scripture.

However, it is important to note that orthodoxy, even in its best form, cannot tell us who is truly Christian. All it can do is tell us who is not. Thus, orthodoxy, by its very nature, is more divisive than anything else. This isn't necessarily bad, for we need to separate out the good teaching from the bad teaching to protect the flock. But a focus on orthodoxy as the test for orthos will result in more and more division (as we can see within Protestantism).

Additionally, an overemphasis on it can lead to a form of gnosticism, where one begins to believe that someone can be saved by affirming a certain set of ideas. But we are not saved by our assent to Christ's existence and activities, but by our faith and trust in Him personally. The gnosticism that is sweeping so much of evangelicalism must be undone.

Thus there needs to be a better way.

Orthopraxy

Orthopraxy means "right practice" or "correct behavior". This is not the same thing as moral living, though it includes moral living. It also includes the rites of the church, such as baptism, marriage, Eucharist, ordination, etc. It is looking at the full lifestyle, as in the pattern by which you live your life.

A Christian is expected to live like a Christian. This is the standard which is maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the Eastern Orthodox Church (despite the name). And there is something higher and more biblical (IMO) by judging a person by orthopraxy over orthodoxy.

However, there are two problems that are associated with focusing on orthopraxy. The first is recognising that, like orthodoxy, it does not guarantee that a person is a Christian. One could just be going through the motions. So, once again, orthopraxy becomes more divisive than anything else. This is especially true since certain practices are culturally bound, and can become more than that if we are not careful. We see this today in the "worship wars" that are going on.

Additionally, because orthopraxy includes moral living, an overemphasis can lead to legalism. This has occurred in many places within the Catholic Church's history (though I will insist that the RCC isn't legalistic in doctrine). Legalism can confuse the matter in terms of what causes salvation. Orthopraxy is the results of salvation, not the cause, and those caught up in legalism can often forget that. Our good works are but filthy rags in the eyes of God, unless washed by the blood of Christ. It is the blood that saves us, nothing else.

Orthopathy

Orthopathy means "right pathos" or "correct attitude". It is my belief that the true measure of a person's orthos, is one's orthopathy. Do you have the attitude that Christ teaches us we are to have? When you look at the Sermon of the mount, you see Christ attempting to shift our focus from the earthly realms and the earthly tests, toward the heavenly ones. It is by orthopathy we will ultimately judged.

This does not mean that orthodoxy and orthopraxy are unimportant. Indeed, it makes them more important, for it is orthodoxy and orthopraxy that shape your attitude, it is is by your attitude that your actions and beliefs will continue to be shaped.

As a human being, I cannot truly see what your attitude is, but I can see what your beliefs are, and what your actions are. Because I can see these things, it is primarily by these things that I judge you. But God sees the heart, and it is by your pathos that He judges you.

But if we cannot see each other's attitudes, then isn't considering orthopathy somewhat moot? Not really. If you judge a person purely by doctrines or actions, then we are likely to condemn based on a certain set of actions or beliefs. But if you know in your mind that you are attempted to gauge a person's attitude through their doctrines and actions, then you can temper legalism and gnosticism on focus on the person. This is the hallmark of Christian faith that values loving a person over anything else. They will know we are Christians by our love.

Thus, I will encourage each of you to focus on orthopathy. Attempt to shape it in your own walk in Christ, and judge one another by this before anything else. This is our calling from Scripture, and it is higher and more heavenly than simply judging the things we can see.

Submitting to Authorities

This is not going to be a well thought out post. Indeed, most that I write in this time period in my life won't be. I don't really have the time to organize when I write right now. Still, there have been some things circling in my mind in relation to authority.

In the 1970s and 1980s, there was a movement known as the "Shepherding Movement" of the "Discipleship Movement" that affected many charismatic churches. Because I currently reside within charismatic circles, I am dealing with the aftermath of this movement. I don't really know much about the movement myself (I knew no one who was a part of it while it was still going on), but I notice that many around me place a strong emphasis on authority in their teachings.

Considering that we live in a rebellious culture, indeed a rebellious nation, it is difficult to assess the validity of my resistance to this tendency. I recognize that many in our culture use the concept of freedom is a means of licentiousness, and part of the Christian life is moral living.

Personally though, I have no real problem with the concept of authority itself, because I don't trust myself that much. I want to be ordained under a denomination to protect myself from myself. The issue is when it comes to doctrine.

Submitting to Teaching

I believe that it is much easier to submit to someone else's wisdom than it is to submit to someone else's teaching, at least for me. I can say that I trust this person's wisdom more than my own, because they are living a more successful life than I am. But what do I do if someone is teaching something I don't agree with.

If I'm merely a member in the congregation this is easy. I disagree. If they make it a point of membership, then I leave. Simple. But what if I am a teacher? If I am a teacher, than I must teach it, or at least not disagree with it. I now have a measure of authority myself, and if I disagree with the church on a doctrine, and I undermining what the church is saying.

Quite frankly, I already have this problem. When I speak on doctrinal matters, most people tend to listen and believe. It is part of my gifts. Besides, I do know a bit about that stuff. So I watch what I say.

But it is not like I can simply believe something that I don't believe. As Martin Luther can tell you, that's not really possible: "Unless I shall be convinced by the testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear reason ... I neither can nor will make any retraction, since it is neither safe nor honourable to act against conscience." Can I just shut my brain off and accept? Not really.

Assemblies of God

A big reason for dealing with this is because I am planning on being ordained. Part of being ordained is that I must adhere to the "16 Fundamental Truths". Personally, I don't like the name because of my disdain for Fundamentalism, but that's not the point of it. They are essentially the working doctrinal creed of AG, and I have no issue with that. They are as follows:

1. The Infallibility of Scripture
2. Monotheism
3. Deity of Christ
4. Human Depravity
5. Salvation by Faith
6. Credobaptism/ Zwinglianism
7. Baptism of the Holy Spirit
8. Speaking in Tongues as the Initial Evidence of Baptism in the Holy Spirit
9. Sanctification
10. Classic Protestant Ecclesiology
11. Ordination
12. Divine Healing
13. Eventual Resurrection for all believers
14. Millennial Reign of Christ
15. Final Judgment: Eternal Life or Hell
16. A New Heavens and a New Earth

Now I don't really have a problem with most of these. I'm not strictly a premillennialist, but I have not objection to it, and there are a few things that I disagree with a some finer points, but agree with the basic concept. On really good on those ideas.

Then there's number 8. Now, I do believe that there is such a thing a speaking in tongues. If you disagree, I would be happy to explain to you why. But the idea that it is thee initial evidence of being baptized in the Spirit is another matter.

Some qualification is in order real quick. In the Assemblies of God, Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not seen to happen at salvation. It is an event which occurs after salvation (maybe moments, maybe years) where the Holy Spirit anoints you with power to enable you to do the ministry of the Church. Associated with this is the presence of the miraculous. But this is not the same thing as salvation. It is a separate event. Assemblies does not teach that you need to speak in tongues to be saved.

What it does teach if that if you do not speak in tongues then you were not baptized by the Spirit. Now I just don't believe that.

My pastor says that they believe that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence because there is always a sign that one is baptized. With regular baptism, it is being wet. In spirit baptism it is speaking in tongues.

But that doesn't make sense. When you are baptized in water, the sign is that you have water on you! Thus, if you are baptized in the Spirit, the sign is that you have the Spirit on you. And what is the evidence of the Spirit? Well, first of all love. Additionally, there should be joy. And one would probably also expect peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Isn't that the evidence of the Spirit? Shouldn't those manifesting be the "initial sign"?

My experience also goes against this. There was a moment when I felt the Spirit overwhelm me, and I was filled with an impulse to do the will of God. And I possessed by the heart of the Lord. There is no other name I can call that experience than baptism, since I felt my self "immersed" in the Spirit. Yet I did not speak in tongues. 3 years later, I first spoke in tongues, and I barely felt the Spirit at all. Yet, according to my pastor, it was the 2nd of these two experiences that was the Baptism. That is completely illogical to me.

Viewing the history of the Pentecostal/charismatic movement in Gary McGee's book People of the Spirit, history doesn't really agree either. Minnie F. Abrams and Pandita Ramabai, who had powerful manifestations of the Spirit, moved in the Spirit long before they had any instances of speaking in tongues. Besides, there is no place in the Bible that insists on this either. All that is there is that speaking in tongues was a common manifestation of the Spirit in the book of Acts.

So, Dealing with my Disagreement

So, since I really disagree with Assemblies on this, how do I approach it? Do I merely consider myself wrong? Do I start to search elsewhere? Neither of these sits well with me. The first, as Martin Luther pointed out, is neither honorable or safe.
The latter is impractical. As a theologian, I will always find things that I disagree about.

There do exist some things that I am willing to part company on, like the Trinity, baptism, and certain soteriological ideas. However, I don't really care enough on this issue to do that. At the same time, I can't just simply accept it either.

Instead, I intend to employ a lesson that I learned from Star Trek: never disagree with the captain in front of the crew. When ever Riker disagreed with Picard, he followed through with the order anyway, but felt free to have some choice (though respectful) words with the captain in the ready room. This is what I intend to do. I am perfectly willing to teach this as official AG teaching, but in the meantime, write lots and lots of letters to those above me on the subject of changing it.

Now I ask anyone out there whether or not you think this is a reasonable course of action. What do you think?