Fundamental convictions about the Word, and the difference they make

by Dan Phillips

Last night in karate, Sensei told us to put in our mouthpieces so he could visit some further indignity on us. Like a good karateka, I ran over to my gear bag and started ransacking it. I couldn't see the ziplock bag with my mouthpiece right off, so I began to dig. I took out my giant blue headgear, looked inside it. Not there. Took out my hand pads, my foot pads. Nothing.

By this time, most of the other karateka's were back on the floor, and I was getting a bit panicked. If I couldn't find my mouthpiece, I'd be doing pushups. But I knew it was there. I hadn't taken it out, no one had had it; it had to be there. I looked in the side pockets, dug everything out, kept looking -- nothing. But it had to be there, I was convinced of it, I was sure of it. I just must have missed something.

Then I noticed that the floor of the bag wasn't fixed, so I moved it around, and then took it out. There, finally, in the corner, was my ziplock with my mouthpiece. In went the mouthpiece, and I was able to submit myself to the next round of happy abuse at the hands of my youngers and betters.

This morning, I start my Bible reading in the book of Numbers -- admittedly not my favorite in the Canon -- and the first two words in Hebrew are wayedabber Yahweh, "Then Yahweh spoke...." This reminds me of the opening word of Leviticus, wayyiqra', "Then [Yahweh] called." This is in fact the book's title, in Hebrew: wayyiqra'.

These are fundamental propositions one meets again and again in Scripture, like fruit on a grapevine, like stars in a desert sky. In the opening verses of Genesis, wayyo'mer 'elohim, "Then God said"; hayah debar Yahweh 'el 'Abram bammachzeh, le'mor, "The word of Yahweh came to Abram in a vision, saying...."

These are, each of them, propositions about the kind of text we're reading. They are either true, or they are false. They purport to be quoting God to us, which they either are doing, or are not doing. Whether the proposition is true or false has a radical impact on how we approach the text.

If you've simply dulled yourself to the actual phenomena of the text, however, they won't have much of an impact. If all these expressions have become merely "bloop" and "blort" to you, then you can lazily go with whatever the popular flow is at the moment, or make something up that you think will get you noticed. There are many ways to dull the crackling, vital facts of Scripture, if you don't care about them as you should.

Theological liberals of all stripes (including "evangelical" ones) do it. I was speaking with a famous evangelical professor from a famous evangelical seminary once. In response to my question, he told me he had no idea who wrote 2 Peter. I asked him, "What about the opening words ["Simeon Peter, slave and apostle of Jesus Christ..."]?" The question clearly surprised him, took him aback for a moment. Then he said, "Well, that's rather beside the point, isn't it?"

Well, to a liberal, it really is. There's the text; and, above it, looking down on it, there's me. And above me, there are those whom I want to impress. I'm free to fantasize and make it up, shored only to suit my own agenda.

But equally leaky-canon Charismatics (which I regard as a tautology) do it. They throw around "Thus said the Lord's" and "The Lord told me's" loosely and frequently, but commonly mean by it nothing like what Scripture means. They've invented their baseless little post eventu notion of unauthoritative, semi-inspired, errant revelation -- which, don't you know, is exactly the way liberals see the Word! So in their mouths, "The Lord said" might equally mean "I was kinda thinking, or feeling -- but no one has to listen to me," or it might mean "Scripture says." Functionally, it comes to mean nothing much.

But it does serve to take all the juice out of what should be a world-stopping, climactic, drop-what-you're-doing-and-listen-up expression.

So how does this fundamental conviction affect what we do with the Word? It's probably plain to you, sharp readers that you are, but let me labor it just a tad more.

Why did I dig and dig through my gear bag? Two reasons: (1) I just knew that what I looked for was in there; and (2) I really, really wanted it (because I really, really didn't want to have to do push-ups). I was confident, and motivated.

Likewise with Scripture. Are you really, really confident that what you really, really need is in there? Liberals aren't. Charismatics aren't. The former do not believe it is the Word of God; the latter say they do, but do not believe that it is truly and fully sufficient. So they do not dig as if their lives depended on it.

But if we do (unlike the former) agree with Jesus that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God; and if we do (unlike the latter) agree with Jesus, the prophets and the apostles that it is the inerrant and sufficient Word of God, then we will dig. We will dig mightily. If we have a need, we will look hard for the answer, in Scripture. If we run into hard texts, difficult texts -- like, oh, I don't know... Leviticus? Numbers? --, we will dig hard and confidently, sure that the answer is there, sure that the Word will prove to be 100% right. We will seek and seek, and knock and knock, and pray, and search, and all those Proverbs 2 and Matthew 6 things. We may need to adopt an attitude of reverent agnosticism until we find. But we'll have no doubt that the answer is there, in the text.

So we can state it both ways. Our fundamental convictions make all the difference in how we treat the Word.

And how we treat the Word, in turn, tells loud and plain what our fundamental convictions really are.

---