“The idea that [the "Christian worldview"] possesses an authoritative answer to every question because it has an authoritative text and leaders willing to engage almost every question makes [the "Christian worldview"] both appealing and abhorrent in our culture. It is a fine line to walk, and it takes wise Christians to walk it. T. David Gordon discovered this in his infamous Modern Reformation essay, “On The Insufficiency of Scripture,” which raised the ticklish issue of ways scripture is not authoritative “as is.” The furor over the article – and its disappearance from Modern Reformation’s web site – continues to animate some who refuse to consider the possibility that [the "Christian worldview"]‘s claim to authority may not be as comprehensive as advertised.”

I just substituted “Christian worldview” for “church”.

http://www.internetmonk.com/archives/2005/07/019932.html

ModRef needs a spinal transplant so they will repost that article. It definitely said things that needed saying – that’s why the TR’s went ballistic over it.

I’ve read it and I certainly don’t see a single thing that “needed to be said.” Maybe it said something that people wanted to hear?

Quote – “(A)ccording to the biblical testimony, how does one acquire wisdom? Well, in part, by heeding GodÂ’s commands in holy scripture (Pro. 10:8; Eccl. 12:13). But more commonly, wisdom comes from listening to advice (Pro. 12:15; 19:20), from entertaining the opinion of a variety of people (Pro. 11:14; 18:17; 24:6), by listening to older people (Pro. 13:1;), and by observing the natural order itself (Pro. 6:6). Wisdom does not come easily or quickly, but through a lengthy, prolonged effort. Most importantly, it does not come exclusively, or perhaps even primarily, through Bible study. Solomon promotes listening to parents, elders, a variety of counselors, and even a consideration of ants, badgers, locusts, and lizards (Pro. 30:24-28). Nor will we concur with a pietistic interpretation of JamesÂ’s counsel that those who lack wisdom should pray for it (James 1:5), as though such prayer would be answered by some sort of special revelation.”

So, why does this qualify as “something people wanted to hear?” Especially as it appears that a number of people did *not* want to hear it from ModRef…

I believe the Bible does speak specifically to any question one could ask. But one must look for the answer. I could provide many examples to that effect, but if one does not believe there is a Biblical answer to any question, then one will neither look for the answer nor accept the answer from someone else.

The 9/11 terrorists learned how to fly jumbo jets, and major airlines filed for bankruptcy post-9/11, joined days ago by more major airlines because of the spike in fuel costs brought on by Hurricane Katrina. So Scripture and Christian worldview might not address how to physically fly a jumbo jet, but it addresses the relationships of teacher to student, employer to employee, subject to government, and human to nature, all of which catastrophically failed and continue to fail pre-9/11, on 9/11, post-9/11, pre-Katrina, during Katrina, post-Katrina, and into the future.

Such careful wording. “Speak to” and “answer specifically” are two different things. I agree the Bible speaks to all human experience in some way, as it tells us that Christ is all and in all. But that scripture contains all knowledge? Or answers all questions specifically? That’s simply absurd.

Back in May, I accepted a doctor’s evaluation of my fractured elbow, not because I assumed that the Bible specifically spoke to the issue of how my elbow was damaged, but because I assumed that the doctor, taking the intellectual and observational gifts God gave him, was competent to examine and diagnose my elbow, irregardless of his relationship to God. It is one thing to say that Scripture teaches generally on many important truths of human existence in relation to God (like such things as common grace in knowledge and worldly wisdom) – but to make the Bible the axiomatic foundation of *all* human knowledge is a philosophical fancy (and ironically, a fancy not rooted in Scripture itself).

I thought about it for a while, and I answered him with this: “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican” (Matthew 18:15-17).

“But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away [...] But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace” (1 Corinthians 7:12, 15).

For the purposes of answering his question, I considered “heathen” and “the unbelieving” to be synonymous, although the two words are not the same in the Greek. I told him to go to his wife alone to discuss their marital problems. If she did not repent, then he should take one or two witnesses. After that, the church should address it. And if she did not repent of wanting to leave him, then he should sign the divorce papers and let her leave, because she would be like a heathen to him.

I began to believe after this that the Bible does have the answers to everything. Okay, so it does not have technical answers, such as how to fly a jumbo jet! But so many people live such sad lives because their lives are filled with activity and doodads, and their souls are hungering for more. A flight manual for a Boeing 747 cannot tell your soul how to fly like an eagle. Neither can the Discovery Channel’s programs on the bald eagle.

My friend did not know how to implement Matthew 18, and I did not have any good counsel on how to carry it out. His divorce probably came about in no small part because of that, because he and his wife did not know how to forgive each other, live with each other’s quirks, and point out each other’s failings in a loving manner. He knew how to set up and maintain a Fortune 500 company’s server system, but he did not know how to save his marriage.