A Pseudo-scholarly response.

I am no scholar. And this is not false humility.

My mental capacities cannot even compare to the likes of Edwards, Piper, McArthur, Sturgeon, Pink, Thoennes, Moreland, etc. They were blessed with mental faculties far beyond my own and they are capable of thinking and extrapolating truth and practical insights from a knowledge base established by years of reading and diligent research.

I find it slightly amusing that my poor little brain likes to be scholarly at times--even though it does not possess the "proper equipment," such as the ability to think/compare abstract ideas or retain heady information from scholarly books and articles. In fact, when my brain tries to engage in scholarly thinking, the rest of my body shuts down in order to supply the necessary amount of "power" my brain needs to think this way.

And right now, my brain is driving itself crazy thinking about "bibleolatry," or "bible idolatry." This is a term that proposes that in most, if not all, conservative evangelical circles, there is an "over-commitment" to the Bible--leaving no room for extra-biblical revelation which hinders the application of practical theology to life, philosopy, natural science, moral law, etc.

My initial reaction to this idea was my jaw-dropping and my eyeballs nearly popping out of their respective sockets: "WHAT??? How can a Christian be over committed to GOD's Word??"

What was even more shocking was that J.P Moreland, a scholar that I greatly admire, even wrote a paper about how this very idea titled, How Evangelicals Became Over-committed to the Bible and What Can Be Done About It.

Now, a scholar--not me--would've done all the research first and read all the necessary books/journals/papers before writing a response. Frankly, I don't have the time to delve deeper into this because I have an apologetics test and nursing pharmacology exam looming over my head like a dark, ominous cloud. I suppose reading the first page of Moreland's paper (and skimming the rest. Hee.), reading various blog responses/critiques and Moreland's own explanation of his paper and view points would have to suffice for now.

I also have ADHD. Maybe.

Anyway, what Moreland does NOT say about this concept of "bibleolatry," is that we stop thinking of scripture as the final authority in the lives of Christians. He does NOT say that we cannot receive revelation from God from His Word. And, finally, he does NOT say that we should stop reading our Bibles.

But Moreland does challenge evangelicals, especially those that are further down the conservative end of the Christianity spectrum, to "think outside the box." He states--and this is loosely paraphrased--that conservatives are not open to the possibility of extra-biblical knowledge, like natural or experiential revelation and other sources that might explain things that are not explicitly discussed within the pages of scripture--like the presence and activity of demons, or crossing cultural bridges and how the Gospel is to be delivered to a culture and worldview outside of the western mindset, or how to contextualize the good news to people groups who have no point of reference for biblical history, Jesus or even know what a "bible" is! (Now, that was my own insight, not Moreland's).

I suppose I can say that I respect where J.P Moreland is coming from. He is merely offering another perspective. He has been studying this for a while and he's done his research, like a good scholar. At this point, I cannot make a committed decision about whether I believe he is right or wrong without being emotional about it.

Yes, emotional.

I observed that my natural tendency would be to throw a fit and call Moreland a heretic, or worse. Why? I'd like to say that my reaction would be coming from "righteous anger," because obviously, I know all the right answers. Yes, ladies and gentlemen. No need to keep on searching for the Truth, because Linell has figured it all out.

NOT.

No, my initial reaction came from the fact that Moreland's ideas were directly interfering with my need to be able to dichotomize my world, or see it in black and white. Once again, he was affriming the fact that the world cannot be so simple. His ideas were challenging MY worldview and beliefs, and more importantly, making ME uncomfortable. In other words: I was taking it way too personally.

And how often do we, as evangelicals, react so strongly (and often times too wrongly) just because our own personal, subjective beliefs about what is true is being challenged?

I know that in times like this, when my brain is being thrown for a loop and I must wrestle with new ideas, I can rest in the fact that TRUTH is objective. That God, who is high in heaven, is our Great Overseer, that He is Sovereign and does not need me to defend Him. He is perfect and in absolute control--despite my personal chaos. And while He does command Christians to speak the Truth in boldness, I am reminded that His greatest commands are to love Him and to love His people. And sometimes, the greatest way to love a person is to shut up and listen. Will it really hurt to listen to new ideas?

And God, will reveal all things in due time, in HIS perfect timing. I can pray and ask Him for wisdom, which He will gladly give, without reproach (James 1:5).

for more info about Moreland's article, you can access and download the PDF file: here.

to read Moreland's response, go here.