THE CHURCH'S MOST DEADLY ENEMY

By Harold S. Martin

The historical critical method of Bible interpretation, in my opinion, is the greatest of all the enemies of the Christian faith. The question is often asked, 'Why have so many revolutionary changes taken place within the church during the past several decades?" Pastors often seem unsure and confused about what they should believe and teach. Their preaching is hazy and unclear. Doubts about the veracity of the Bible are plentiful. Christians sense that something significant has taken place, but often do not know why there has been so much reinterpretation.

What are the factors that lie behind the shift from simple biblicism (if the Bible commands it we seek to practice it), to a position that questions and reinterprets some of the Bible's message? The major reason why many church leaders no longer accept the Bible's obvious message, is because they have accepted the historical critical method of Bible interpretation.

The changes which have taken place in the church have not come upon us suddenly. Already in the late 1700s there arose in Europe a revival of intellectualism known as the Enlightenment. Enlightenment thinkers were hostile to traditional Christianity. They did not abandon religion, but they accepted as reality only that which appealed to human reason. They did not accept the supernatural. They searched for scientific explanations that would interpret life in terms of physical laws. Scientific explanations began to replace religious explanations.

The Enlightenment, with its emphasis on science and reason, could only regard the Bible as a human book, not as a revelation from God. Out of this movement grew a religious discipline of Bible interpretation known as historical criticism. The assumptions held by scholars who embrace the historical critical approach to Bible interpretation are these:

1) The books of the Bible may not have been written by the persons to whom tradition (or the Bible text) assigns them. For example, the first five books of the Bible (the scholars say) were written by Jahwistic, Elohistic, Deuteronomic, and Priestly (J, E, D, P) writers. The book of Isaiah was written by more than one Isaiah. Surely Isaiah, the son of Amoz, could not have named Cyrus long before Cyrus was born!

2) Certain passages in the Bible could have been altered or corrupted (interpolated) by someone other than the author.

3) Some statements ascribed to Jesus may be the writer's idea of what Jesus might have said, rather than record of His actual literal words.

4) A number of Bible statements are the result of cultural conditioning rather than a definite word from God.

5) The Bible is the result of an evolutionary process. Early Christians used prescientific depictions of reality in formulating their beliefs, and so today one must use critical reason to decide what is reality in the Bible, and what cannot be reality. To scholars, this process is known as demythologization.

In keeping with the above assumptions, the method of historical criticism is often used to make the Bible say something different from what serious students of the Bible have understood it to say. The critics have not only questioned the authorship and the dating of many of the Bible books, but have also frequently rejected the obvious meaning of the great doctrinal truths and ethical principles of the Scriptures. Principles which are not palatable to the human mind are said to have been culturally conditioned.

There is, of course, value in seeking to discover who the writers of the Bible books were, and in trying to discover what their purposes were for writing?but we must remember that Jesus accepted the Old Testament much as we have it today. And as for the New Testament, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would bring to the apostles' memory the data related to His activities and ministry. And so the Bible is not the product of the minds of brilliant human authors, but is a revelation of the will of God.

Harold Lindsell, in his book, The Bible in the Balance, illustrates a typical revolt by the scholars against the standards of the Bible by citing a common view regarding homosexuality. Lindsell says, "Any objective approach to the Scripture must result in the conclusion that the Bible does teach that homosexual conduct is intrinsically wrong and forever forbidden." However, some Bible teachers today are saying that homosexuality has God's divine sanction and blessing. They use the historical critical approach to Bible interpretation which says that not all Scripture is the Word of God for us today, and that we must seek to find God's Word hidden within the Scriptures. Final authority regarding what is true, according to the critics, is determined by the trained, informed, critical intellect. The female scholar, Eta Linnemann, in her book, Historical Criticism of the Bible, says that for the critics, "Critical (human) reason decides what is reality in the Bible, and what cannot be reality."

The presuppositions of the historical critics lead to devastating results. Instead of objectivity, there is almost unrestrained subjectivity. That is, the Scriptures are subjected to mere human reasoning. The historical critical method humanizes the Bible and downgrades the concept of divine authorship. Former BRF Chairman, Donald Miller, used to say that it doesn't take much of a formal education to understand the Bible, but it does take some special training to learn to explain your way around it!

There are some questions which will help a church board determine whether or not a prospective teacher/preacher is a trustworthy expositor of the Bible:

1) What is your view of Genesis 1-11 (that is, were Adam and Eve real historical persons)?

2) What is your belief about the recorded miracles? Did the parting of the Red Sea really occur? Did the walls of Jericho fall (as described in the book of Joshua)? What about Jonah and the big fish?

3) What is your solution to the differing Gospel accounts? Can they be harmonized? if so, how can they be reconciled?

4) Do you believe the Bible is true in its historical statements? How do the Bible and science relate?

5) How do you understand John 14:6, where Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me"? What is your response to the statement: "Jesus is unique in that He alone is the way to salvation and Heaven"?

6) How do you interpret the first half of 1 Corinthians 11, and how do you harmonize that interpretation with your understanding of the last half of the chapter?

All prospective teachers/preachers should be able to speak frankly about their relationship with Jesus Christ. They should freely share their views on the current moral issues of abortion, war and peace, homosexuality, the remarriage of divorced persons, living together before marriage, etc. It is important to hear an explanation of how the candidate sees Christianity differing from Islam and Judaism. What are their views of feminist theology and creation spirituality?