I stirred the pot again with my comment at the end of the post quoting Carl Trueman, so I’d like to take another run (or two) at the matter of distinguishing between ideas and individuals. Actually, last week, while I was overseas, I wrote up something I intended to post, but didn’t because I wasn’t able to get internet access until much later than I expected. As you can tell, it was written as if I’d be able to post it in a timely way. I’ll simply reproduce it “as is” so that you can see what I was thinking then. I’m getting ready to head out of the country again, so I don’t know if I’ll follow up right away or not. Here goes:
Here’s part of what happens when you are on the other side of the world. It’s 9 p.m. where you are, but your body can’t decide if it is early morning or time to go to bed. Bed wins and you sleep very well…until the middle of the night when your body decides that your little daytime nap has been enough. Said that to explain what I am about to write. It represents what happens when you lay in bed wide awake in the middle of the night and your mind is buzzing about a combination of things—the seven messages on discernment that you will doing next week for a conference, the tension that gets created when you use real life examples in order to open a discussion on ideas, the process of going from concrete to abstract in biblical interpretation and homiletics, etc.
Although I would like to have slept a little longer, I am thankful for the quiet, extended time to ruminate on these things. I think they are important. In reality, the development on spiritual discernment demands that we think through them so that we can make wise choices. So, here are some bullet point thoughts for your consideration. I’ll let you judge whether I should have just rolled over and gone back to sleep!
· I believe a very strong biblical case can be made that discernment involves drawing wise conclusions from specific, concrete cases. For example, we are to draw wisdom and instruction from observing the field of the sluggard (cf. Pro 24:30-34). I think we all acknowledge this when we encourage the reading of history. I suppose it is easier for us to evaluate things when the objects of our evaluation are dead or distant. It seems that when we look at current events we are too often tied to the people involved in ways that make us more sensitive about things. That’s mostly good, but I wonder if it doesn’t reflect some unhealthy elements of our contemporary culture. This is a delicate matter simply because it is possible to err in either direction—unwarranted defense or criticism of individuals. And we might be tempted to ignore legitimate concerns or the exposure of illegitimate concerns if we don’t look at the ideas rather than the individuals involved.
· There is no doubt that some have abused the concept of “biblical principles” as an element of making ethical decisions. Sometimes it takes the form of a conclusion in search of a text to support it. Most often, though, it seems to simply represent a misguided hermeneutic that turns every action in a text into a timeless principle (e.g., “If you want to beat the giants in your life, then you need to take care of your regular duties like David did.”). In any event, I don’t deny that some have been “principle happy” and used it to bind the consciences of God’s people illegitimately. But I think we make a serious mistake if we react to this by running in the other direction to a kind of reductionism that almost treats the Bible in an excessively time-bound way. Clearly, Paul believed that things were recorded in the Scripture as examples for us (cf. 1 Cor 10:6) and even demonstrated for us how to use a case example from the Mosaic Law in order to derive a moral principle that to be applied to support for Gospel ministers (cf. 1 Cor 9:9-10). Frankly, I think one of the problems that needs to be addressed in our use of Scripture is the tendency to think that God only cares about specific cases and not about timeless principles.
· One of the concepts that gets discussed, in homiletics textbooks and classes, regarding the application of Scripture is the “ladder of abstraction.” I don’t have access to my books, but I believe that Sunukjian (Invitation to Biblical Preaching) does a good job talking about this. Matthewson is helpful in his work on Old Testament narratives. Walter Kaiser (Toward an Exegetical Theology uses the term “principalization” to refer, I think, to the same basic idea. IOW, when the Bible uses a concrete example, we must work up from that to a more abstract concept that allows us to make contemporary application. It needs more elaboration, but let me use David and Goliath again. How do we handle this text? We can strap it down to its historical details—if you are David (the chosen king), then you can kill giants. Or we can jump to the other end—here’s how to beat the giants in your life. Better would be to see the original intent (the text helps us understand why David is a man after God’s heart and God’s chosen one to lead Israel) and then move it up one level to a question like, What kind of man will God use? You move from a specific, concrete example (David) to a more general truth (kind of person). That’s what Paul did with oxen in 1 Cor 9. Frankly, I think we do this all the time. Sometimes well, sometimes not so much.
· All that to say, when a specific case is cited, the point in doing so should be to move up the ladder of abstraction to the larger matter of ideas. So, a specific man/institution naming a specific pavilion after another specific man shouldn’t be left at the level of specifics, but instead elevated to the level of ideas—what should we think about the concept of giving honor to certain kinds of individuals? (Or, if someone wants to turn it around, what should we think about pastors who post criticisms of actions like this?) Is anything biblical at stake when one honors someone who was unfaithful to Gospel?
· Now, I think that a part of the point that Owen Strachen was making, and that I appreciate, is that it isn’t as easy to separate the individuals from the ideas as it may seem. I think Owen was saying that this decision can’t be evaluated apart from a consideration of who Al Mohler is (and what SBTS is) and how Dr. Mohler has consistently responded to questions of biblical fidelity. To a point, I agree with him, and that’s why I would not want to make a single decision like this a referendum on a man or institution. It is very uncharitable and unwise to draw conclusions from limited evidence. But that really is why the post was made in the first place—the appearance of conflicting ideas in that the institution cleaned house, but now honors the one who filled the house with the stuff that needed to be swept out.
· I also believe, though, that it is unwise to dismiss the discussion of ideas because of the individuals involved.
