Chapter one of the Westminster Confession of Faith places the human being within a world that suggests God, hints at God but doesn't show us his true character, nor how we would relate to him. God's revealed character, and what he means for the world, intends it to be, what he created it for - these are all things which come from God's revelation, or unveiling of himself in his Word. Is this the written Word, or the one referred to in John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word?" Probably both, but in Westminster organization of Christian teaching, the written Word, the Bible is the exclusive authority on God and this authority rests on God alone, not on our ability to read it well.
I explored briefly in my last post the objections to Westminster beginning this way. In summary these arguments ask, "Who begins our journey in the Christian faith?"
"Jesus." we answer.
"And if we grow in our faith, how did that come about?"
"Because all of faith is fellowship with God through Christ, we say again - Jesus is how we grow in our faith."
"And when we at last come to the completion of our journey of faith, what do we expect to see or find?"
"Because all of eternal life consists in a full fellowship with God that will no longer be by faith, but by sight, we say again - Jesus is our destination."
"Then, if Jesus is the beginning, middle, and end of all our journeying toward God, why does the Westminster Confession begin with teaching about Holy Scripture?"
And here we would agree. What good reason would Westminster Confession of Faith have for beginning with Scripture rather than with God? The complaint comes to mind of people who love their Bibles so much that they think they'll be reading them in heaven. Is that what we're dealing with here? A case of excessive biblio-philia? Should we want to lift the Westminster delegates' bearded heads up from their Bibles so that they can actually see God?
Robert Letham finds three reasons why the Westminster folks are keeping their heads down in their Bibles. The first and third reasons have to do with other documents such as the influential-at-the-time Irish Articles, and also with the development of textual criticism of written sources including the Bible. The second reason is this: the Bible is how we come to know about God. He writes: "Epistemologically, it is the best starting point, while a beginning with God would have given a more ontological focus. It was a matter of judgment." (121)
Epistemology and ontology, as word choices, drone a bit. They sound academic and they intimidate. But they happen everytime we learn anything. You are in front of a group of people. You are teaching them how to make a spinach and feta cheese omelet. How do you begin? You could begin with the reason we're all there and talk about the omelet. Show a picture of it. Describe how it tastes. That's why we're really there. But then you might think - "these people know what an omelet is. They know how it tastes. That's why they're here. They don't want me to talk about the omelet. They want me to talk about the bowl, the egg-beater, the stove-pan, the spatula, how long it cooks, how much salt to use, whether to cook the feta or just toss it on top. They want to engage with me about the steps I take, the process I go through to get from having no omelet to the place where I can finally sit down with the omelet and enjoy it."
That's a fairly ridiculous illustration and you can tell I'm not really a foodie, but our teacher has moved from an ontological approach to teaching to an epistemological approach. Instead of focusing on what the omelet is, the teacher focuses on the way to get to the omelet. Both approaches are important. The ontological approach is more beautiful. It holds the object itself up before you. "This is an omelet." Seeing an omelet has a motivating quality to make one, especially if you're hungry. Ontology draws us in. Epistemology helps us to set up our home. Ontology shows us the nature of the omelet, motivates us to make it, and epistemology shows us how to make one anytime we'd like. Education has happened. And your life is no longer omelet-less.
That the Westminster Confession of Faith chose to begin with epistemology would suggest to us that the confession is very practical. Most wouldn't think so by looking through it. That the Westminster Confession of Faith chose to begin with epistemology would suggest to us that the confession is very human-centered. Yet this is also not apparently the case, for few documents are so God-centered. So which is it? Is the Westminster Confession of Faith human-centered - a bunch of folks who are too busy in their Bibles to look up and see God? Or if it's God-centered, how ironic that it begins not with God, but with the way we know God - the Bible.
The Westminster Confession of Faith describes the Bible as very comprehensive with regard to things of God that we need to know: "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture..." (1.6) The Confession will go on very quickly to become much more God-centered. Beginning with Scripture is the Confession's way of teaching us that of all God is up to in the whole universe, he is chiefly concerned with us. It is saying "you want to know God. That is where you want to be. That is where the Bible will not lead you astray. God has given it a hallowed place to show us who God really is, and also who we really are. And this is the key to everything to come. We begin here, because only if we begin here, will we see what God is really like." So the Westminster Confession of Faith begins in a human-centered way precisely so that it can center itself in God.
No comments:
Post a Comment