... but I thought the AEF CALL isn't biblical?

1. On the Primacy of the Biblical Narrative

We call for a return to the priority of the divinely authorized canonical story of the Triune God. This story-Creation, Incarnation, and Re-creation-was effected by Christ's recapitulation of human history and summarized by the early Church in its Rules of Faith. The gospel-formed content of these Rules served as the key to the interpretation of Scripture and its critique of contemporary culture, and thus shaped the church's pastoral ministry. Today, we call Evangelicals to turn away from modern theological methods that reduce the gospel to mere propositions, and from contemporary pastoral ministries so compatible with culture that they camouflage God's story or empty it of its cosmic and redemptive meaning. In a world of competing stories, we call Evangelicals to recover the truth of God's word as the story of the world, and to make it the centerpiece of Evangelical life.

[reprinted without alteration with permission from: www.aefcall.org]

I have heard it so many times I feel nauseous. "You don't believe in the Bible." "You promote non-biblical doctrines." "You endorse clearly non-scriptural practices." Of course what such comments really mean is "You approach the tasks of interpreting and applying scriptures differently than I do" which, of course, sounds much too congenial to actually say. Isn't it much more fun to just accuse others who are different of being wrong?

And then there is the issue of repeating the history we failed to learn. This "it's not biblical" argument is simply a return to one of the big issues that confronted the reformers. There were (and still are) two basic lines of thinking: the permissive and the prescriptive. Those who approach scripture with a permissive paradigm suggest that if a practice is not clearly forbidden in scripture, then that practice ought to be permitted in the church. An example of this might be clerical vestments. Scripture is silent about what a pastor ought to wear when conducting worship and celebrating the sacraments. Therefore, a pastor ought not be forbidden from wearing vestments. Further, in judging the tradition in the church of pastors wearing liturgical vestments, since scripture provides no guidance, then tradition can be deemed appropriate for practice and faithful to scripture.

However, those who approach scripture with a prescriptive paradigm suggest that Christians ought only be allowed to do those things that are prescribed in scripture. Using the same example of liturgical vestments, a prescriptive proponent would argue that scripture does not require clergy to wear any distinctive uniform. Therefore since scripture does not prescribe vestments, the church should not prescribe vestments. In fact, to prescribe the donning of liturgical vestments is viewed as unbiblical and many prescriptionists would go so far as to say any use of clerical attire, prescribed or not, since it is not found in scripture, is unbiblical.

This brief lesson in history serves to give background to much of the contemporary debate. The AEF Call is obviously shaped by the permissive paradigm. It is clear in its call for the scriptures to be understood as the "divinely authorized canonical story of the Triune God," that the story of God is "truth" and that sacred scripture is to be the "centerpiece of evangelical life." With this, doubtless anyone could disagree. But it also realizes the limitations of scripture. Scripture, while authorized and inspired, by an infinite God, was written by finite human beings. As such, scripture must be understood to be written by particular human beings, with a particular perspective, in a particular place, at a particular time, and from within a particular culture. Scripture, then, cannot be approached prescriptorally. First century Jewish men could not begin to prescribe all that is necessary for 21st century life. Nor could they speak from within a 21st century culture or with a 21st century vocabulary. Thus the issue is not with Scripture, its inspiration, its authorization, its content, etc., but with how it is interpreted and applied.

The AEF Call seems to recognize two dangerous tendencies that have arisen within the contemporary evangelical church. The first is to attempt to interpret and apply the scriptures in a vacuum. That is, to suggest that we can interpret and apply them without giving thought to what they have meant in the past. A seminary professor often reminded us that a passage cannot mean what it never meant. In interpreting and applying scripture, we must take into consideration what the author meant and what the audience understood, as well as how the passage has been interpreted and applied throughout the 2,000 year history of the church. In an attempt to address the danger of isolationist interpretations of scripture, the AEF Call seeks to recover the concept of a "Rule of Faith" that guides the appropriation of scripture and defines biblical orthodoxy for the church.

The second dangerous development is identified as the reduction of scripture to a set a "propositional truths." It cannot be denied that scripture contains "propositional truths." However, scripture is not to be understood as "propositional truth." What seems to be missing is an adequate understanding of truth. Truth is much larger than logical arguments and propositional statements. For as long as humans have been able to talk they have told stories in order to convey truth. In fact, Jesus' own preferred way of teaching was telling stories. Does the fact that the story of the prodigal son was not a historical story with real life characters that actually did what we are told change the truth of the story? Of course not! Was Jesus a liar because he told stories that didn't really happen? Of course not! Stories can certainly be true despite lacking historical factuality. Properly understood, scripture is a story. It is a story that does contain historical people, in historical places, that acted in history. It is a story that contains propositional truth. But to reduce scripture to a set of propositional truths by ignoring the relevancy of the story of God is a great danger. Therefore, the AEF Call reminds "Evangelicals to turn away from modern theological methods that reduce the gospel to mere propositions, and from contemporary pastoral ministries so compatible with culture that they camouflage God's story or empty it of its cosmic and redemptive meaning."

I fear, this post has already droned on too long and rambled to broadly. The point is simply this: the AEF Call is not "unbiblical" as many of its critics accuse. Rather, it seeks a full, robust understanding of scripture that returns the story of God / the story of salvation to its rightful place at the center of Christian thought and practice.

Resurrection Peace,

Eric +