The Importance of the Written Word for our Faith and Practice
The internet changed the topics I dip into. Some are more eclectic than others are. A recent e-zine I discovered has an article about the Incas of South America and their non-written language. The article comments on the success of the Incan empire without a written language. You will have to read, “How the Inkas governed, thrived and fell without alphabetic writing” for yourself to get a sense of their non-written system. That by itself is a fascinating tale, told too briefly in this article.
However, the thing that mainly interested me in the article is this paragraph, describing the takeover of the Incan empire by invading Catholicism:
Like other Religions of the Book, Catholicism demanded strict adherence to one God, and the rejection of all other deities. Religions based upon books such as the Bible or the Quran, being (literally) prescriptive, were less tolerant than oral religions. Rival belief-systems presented both an opportunity and a threat. Missionaries and evangelists preached conversion, but with them came inquisitors or crusaders, at which point definitions were sharpened, and criteria for inclusion and exclusion delineated. ‘Truth’ acquired a different meaning, less something to be sought after than something to be received: one God, one credo, one book (‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me’). ‘Reform’ for a book-centred religion did not mean adaptation, but a reversion to fundamentals – the immutable ‘word of God’, as interpreted by the priesthood. Confronted by such certainties, backed by coercive force, the more open-ended, absorbent oral religions of Africa or the Americas were simply overwhelmed.
“Religions of the Book” — this is how the author describes religions that depend on authoritative writings as the central (or only) source of truth. The author describes this concept as “prescriptive,” “less tolerant,” “sharpened definitions,” “inclusion” vs. “exclusion,” “something to be received,” “reversion to fundamentals,” and “certainties.” There are probably a few other terms in there that I missed.
There is a nod to postmodernity in the paragraph. “‘Truth’ acquired a different meaning, less something to be sought after than something to be received,” revealing, I think, an antagonistic worldview to revealed religion. The postmodern mind is on a journey of discovery, not submitting to a creed. Postmodernism leads to chaos, as we see happening around us every day. However, I digress.
The author’s insight in this paragraph touches on the importance of written revelation, especially within orthodox Christianity. The higher one’s view of the Bible (the “Book” of our “religion”), the more one will tend towards a “reversion to fundamentals.” Baptists are not too likely to consider Catholics as particularly close to “the fundamentals,” but compared to the confusion of the world’s many belief systems, they are a bedrock of order.
Even so, among professing Christians, the higher we hold the Bible and the doctrine of inspiration, the closer we come to elevating “the fundamentals” as the rallying cry of our belief system and the order on which we base our fellowships. We test the extent of friendships, even blood relationships, by the “fundamentals.” I have relatives whom I love after the flesh, but I can’t (and won’t) enter religious fellowship or partnership with them. Their disobedience to the Book precludes cooperation in Christian effort.
On the other hand, the more indefinitely that professing Christians hold the Bible and the doctrine of inspiration, the broader and looser become all kinds of relationships in their ecclesiastical partnerships. The ecumenical movement doesn’t seem to get a lot of press these days, but the loose doctrines of inspiration held by liberal Christians (and, yes, many Evangelicals) produce looser requirements for relationships. The “Book” is less important than the feel-good words (oral communication and testimony) that people employ. They want to “get along” as long as we can say something about Jesus and being positive.
This highlights the most important doctrine, perhaps, of the Fundamentals, the verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. Verbal means “word by word,” plenary means “all or full,” so that verbal plenary inspiration teaches us that every word of the original manuscripts as written down by the apostles and prophets is as if God himself spoke them directly to us. Everything else we believe depends on this concept, it lends authority to our preaching, and it calls to the lost world with all the claims of Christ. In this lies the genius of Christian preaching and the imperative that we need more of it, not less of it.
Which brings me to this: We are people of the Book, true enough. We appeal to written revelation as our exclusive authority. However, we are often very silent when we are in the oral culture around us. We are in danger of being overwhelmed by the loose opinions of people around us who speak authoritatively without a solid backing. What keeps us silent? We have the voice of God, the mission of the church is to bring his voice to wayward ears and let the Book speak to their hearts. May God help us to preach the Word we hold true. It is the only hope of a dying world.
Don Johnson is the pastor of Grace Baptist Church of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.