New axis of tensions

[Neto]

Let's see if we can do this without devolving into politics...

Recently, Timothy Dalrymple of Christianity Today recently wrote an article examining the divide within conservative (evangelical) Christianity. It respectfully and empathetically captures much of what I was already thinking...so I would recommend it for folks who want to dig deeper into understand this divide.

In a nutshell, Dalrymple sees two visions within conservative Christianity for the Church and the Kingdom of God: The Church Regnant, and The Church Remnant. In his words:

• "The Church Regnant sees the kingdom of God, the end toward which we strive, as a world in which men and women are free to follow their faith, life is held sacred from conception to death, families can raise their children in biblical truth, churches take the lead in charity, and government provides a stable order for the flourishing of meaningful enterprise...
  
  It leads the Church Regnant to place a higher value on the acquisition and use of political power. The Church Regnant views the election starkly as a battle between good and evil. The vices of the president seem small when the virtue of the world hangs in the balance. Winning political power means protecting the Christian way of life and sowing seeds of truth and goodness into culture, and thus bringing God’s blessing upon the land. Losing political power means the culture spirals into deepening immorality and untruth, eroding the foundations of society and leading to greater suffering for all."
  
  "The Church Remnant is captivated by a fundamentally different vision of the kingdom of God. The kingdom, in this view, is too sacred to be confused with winning elections and passing laws. It is not a political dispensation or social order. It is not a kingdom of this world. Instead, the kingdom breaks into time and space when men and women sent by the king seek the lost and serve the least. The kingdom of heaven is among us when we speak the gospel in word and deed, serve the homeless and the refugee, and come alongside our suffering neighbors.
  
  For the Church Remnant, the kingdom of God is less about the acquisition of power than the divestment of power, laying down our rights and privileges as Christ did (Philippians 2) in order to serve the powerless...The kingdom of heaven is not about the sword but about the cup, not about defending ourselves but about dying to ourselves...The court of power possesses an enormous gravitational attraction that too often distorts our ability to see and to witness Christ clearly."

This does a pretty good job of explaining the divide IMO. The Church Regnant represents what I would call the Evangelical/Calvinist view, and the Church Remnant is more representative of historic Anabaptism (although the Anabaptist view of the Kingdom has more real-world "social order" implications than Dalrymple recognizes).

I would only add - and this is important - that behind these two visions are two differing guiding hermeneutical approaches - The Church Regnant is a result of a hermeneutic rooted in broad Biblicism, the Church Remnant is the result of a Christocentric understanding of scripture.

I had read the first couple of posts in this thread when they appeared on the board, but since I could make no sense of what was meant, I didn't look again until this morning. (The quotations above are helpful in understanding what was intended.)

I will only comment on the last paragraph, because as a self-proclaimed 'Biblicist' I feel that the term is either being misused, or the use of the adjective 'broad' makes it mean something other than what i understand of it. So I would like to hear a clarification of what is actually meant here. My personal feeling is that true 'biblicism' IS Christocentric, so the distinction represented here is not helpful. That is, a true understanding of the Scripture clearly shows that Christ is the one single thread or topic that is woven throughout Scripture, by the hand of God. Jesus himself held a very high view of Moses & the prophets, and I think that we do him disservice if we think that we are entitled to go against his own example.

I cannot make an opinion based on writings of Swiss Brethren as to their position on use of the whole Scripture, since there is so little of any writings available to examine, but I will say that in the writings of the Dutch 'baptism minded' (Menno Simons & the Martyrs' Mirror, for example) there is 'broad' use of both the Old & New Testaments, and so I see no support for any statement that they held to any hierarchical view of Scripture, maintaining that one portion was more "inspired" than another.

(I realize that this post is somewhat off-topic here, so will clearly state that I am fully on the side of what is here characterized as "Church Remnant", and that my personal opinion is that this must follow any true 'Biblicist' approach to Scripture, and decry the clear cases in which my own people did not follow this path, but instead were drawn in by the possibility or promise of political power. In this context, I would also say that there is nothing 'new' about this conflict or 'tension', at least in the history of my own people, the Dutch Mennonites.)

[silentreader]

Let's see if we can do this without devolving into politics...

Recently, Timothy Dalrymple of Christianity Today recently wrote an article examining the divide within conservative (evangelical) Christianity. It respectfully and empathetically captures much of what I was already thinking...so I would recommend it for folks who want to dig deeper into understand this divide.

In a nutshell, Dalrymple sees two visions within conservative Christianity for the Church and the Kingdom of God: The Church Regnant, and The Church Remnant. In his words:

• "The Church Regnant sees the kingdom of God, the end toward which we strive, as a world in which men and women are free to follow their faith, life is held sacred from conception to death, families can raise their children in biblical truth, churches take the lead in charity, and government provides a stable order for the flourishing of meaningful enterprise...
  
  It leads the Church Regnant to place a higher value on the acquisition and use of political power. The Church Regnant views the election starkly as a battle between good and evil. The vices of the president seem small when the virtue of the world hangs in the balance. Winning political power means protecting the Christian way of life and sowing seeds of truth and goodness into culture, and thus bringing God’s blessing upon the land. Losing political power means the culture spirals into deepening immorality and untruth, eroding the foundations of society and leading to greater suffering for all."
  
  "The Church Remnant is captivated by a fundamentally different vision of the kingdom of God. The kingdom, in this view, is too sacred to be confused with winning elections and passing laws. It is not a political dispensation or social order. It is not a kingdom of this world. Instead, the kingdom breaks into time and space when men and women sent by the king seek the lost and serve the least. The kingdom of heaven is among us when we speak the gospel in word and deed, serve the homeless and the refugee, and come alongside our suffering neighbors.
  
  For the Church Remnant, the kingdom of God is less about the acquisition of power than the divestment of power, laying down our rights and privileges as Christ did (Philippians 2) in order to serve the powerless...The kingdom of heaven is not about the sword but about the cup, not about defending ourselves but about dying to ourselves...The court of power possesses an enormous gravitational attraction that too often distorts our ability to see and to witness Christ clearly."

This does a pretty good job of explaining the divide IMO. The Church Regnant represents what I would call the Evangelical/Calvinist view, and the Church Remnant is more representative of historic Anabaptism (although the Anabaptist view of the Kingdom has more real-world "social order" implications than Dalrymple recognizes).

I would only add - and this is important - that behind these two visions are two differing guiding hermeneutical approaches - The Church Regnant is a result of a hermeneutic rooted in broad Biblicism, the Church Remnant is the result of a Christocentric understanding of scripture.

I had read the first couple of posts in this thread when they appeared on the board, but since I could make no sense of what was meant, I didn't look again until this morning. (The quotations above are helpful in understanding what was intended.)

I will only comment on the last paragraph, because as a self-proclaimed 'Biblicist' I feel that the term is either being misused, or the use of the adjective 'broad' makes it mean something other than what i understand of it. So I would like to hear a clarification of what is actually meant here. My personal feeling is that true 'biblicism' IS Christocentric, so the distinction represented here is not helpful. That is, a true understanding of the Scripture clearly shows that Christ is the one single thread or topic that is woven throughout Scripture, by the hand of God. Jesus himself held a very high view of Moses & the prophets, and I think that we do him disservice if we think that we are entitled to go against his own example.

I cannot make an opinion based on writings of Swiss Brethren as to their position on use of the whole Scripture, since there is so little of any writings available to examine, but I will say that in the writings of the Dutch 'baptism minded' (Menno Simons & the Martyrs' Mirror, for example) there is 'broad' use of both the Old & New Testaments, and so I see no support for any statement that they held to any hierarchical view of Scripture, maintaining that one portion was more "inspired" than another.

(I realize that this post is somewhat off-topic here, so will clearly state that I am fully on the side of what is here characterized as "Church Remnant", and that my personal opinion is that this must follow any true 'Biblicist' approach to Scripture, and decry the clear cases in which my own people did not follow this path, but instead were drawn in by the possibility or promise of political power. In this context, I would also say that there is nothing 'new' about this conflict or 'tension', at least in the history of my own people, the Dutch Mennonites.)

I agree, true Biblicism can only be Christocentric. That is pointed out in the first chapter of the Gospel of John.
Doubting the Christocentrism of the Biblical account of Creation is one of the reasons that both Biblicism and Christocentrism become foundationally shaky in our minds.

[Judas Maccabeus]

I would only add - and this is important - that behind these two visions are two differing guiding hermeneutical approaches - The Church Regnant is a result of a hermeneutic rooted in broad Biblicism, the Church Remnant is the result of a Christocentric understanding of scripture.

I would take only one exception to this. I would suggest that it is not Biblicism, but the takeover of reformed theology, with a hefty dose of reconstructionism. You really did not see much of this in American christianity until the beginning of the "Moral Majority", Francis Schaffer's later writings, and the "Reformed" takeover of many of the larger evangelical seminaries in the 70's. Reformed theology was seen as the only academically respectable position, almost took over seminaries, and that trickled down into churches that used pastors trained in those places. We even saw this in the C&MA, and I will cite the Bible Fellowship as an example. There are few places where you can avoid it's influence in higher theological education. Churches that call these pastors will sooner or later trend reformed, and will adopt their vier of the church in society.

Prior to this, the predominant mentality in much, if not most, of the evangelical church was a fortress mentality, it did not entangle itself much in politics, and evangelicals were all over the political spectrum, and seldom brought that into the church. The conservative resurgence within the SBC, and parallel moves is similar groups, turned into a reformed resurgence, and reformed theology welds the swords of the state and the Spirit together rather effectively. In the church I went to before I was married, in the late 70s, even permitting the local county councilman to sit on the platform during a church dedication created a stir, because it was seen as too close to the government, now that same church had a Sunday School class "God, Government and the Constitution." The EFC near me is a hotbed of political christianity, and it is reformed in its theology. That was not true in the early 90s.

So, I don't see it as much "Biblicism" as I do reformed theology as the cause of this. Reformed theology with it's view of the church naturally lends itself to this.

J.M.

[Dan Z]

I will only comment on the last paragraph, because as a self-proclaimed 'Biblicist' I feel that the term is either being misused, or the use of the adjective 'broad' makes it mean something other than what i understand of it. So I would like to hear a clarification of what is actually meant here. My personal feeling is that true 'biblicism' IS Christocentric, so the distinction represented here is not helpful.

I agree, true Biblicism can only be Christocentric.

First thanks to both of you for reading to the end of my post.

Let me start by saying say that I agree with both of you that "true Biblicism IS/can only be Christocentric." The problem is that, in practice, this is often not the case. Many self-avowed "Biblicists" do not employ a Christocentric or "christologic" approach to understanding scripture. For example, there are Biblicists who promote the prosperity gospel, or dominion theology, or prophetic speculation, or in the case of this discussion, Christian nationalism. Looking across Christianity, there are all kinds of interpretations of scripture that run counter to the teachings and example of Christ.

Biblicsm (meaning a high regard for the inspiration and authority of scripture) is certainly important - but only if framed in the context of God's greatest and final revelation of Himself - Jesus. In other words, a Christocentric hermeneutic starts with and privileges the person, teachings and example of Jesus...and informs it's understanding of the rest of scripture. Jesus is the Word (Logos) of God to whom the word of God bears witness. A doctrinal conclusion that runs counter to the person and teachings of Jesus is an errant conclusion.

Mennonite historian J.C. Wenger talks of the protestant "flat Bible," where all of scripture is understood and interpreted with equal weight. In his booklet "Our Christ-centered Faith," Wenger went on to say:

• "The Swiss Brethren, the Austrian Hutterites, and the Dutch Mennonites had a Christ-centered Bible. The Lord Jesus was for them the most important theme of the Old Testament prophetic Scriptures -- the Savior or "Messiah" which was to come -- and was even more obviously the center of the New Testament Scriptures...
  
  Such "christological" interpretation meant seeing the Lord Jesus as both key to, and "Lord" of, the canonical Scriptures. They all witness to Him, and if we are to be faithful we must teach from the entire Bible precisely what He taught. We must understand God's law as He understood it. We must be Christlike, in the power of His Spirit. We must stress what He stressed in theology and ethics."

In this regard, I believe you both understand this perspective when you say:

That is, a true understanding of the Scripture clearly shows that Christ is the one single thread or topic that is woven throughout Scripture, by the hand of God. Jesus himself held a very high view of Moses & the prophets, and I think that we do him disservice if we think that we are entitled to go against his own example.

That is pointed out in the first chapter of the Gospel of John. Doubting the Christocentrism of the Biblical account of Creation is one of the reasons that both Biblicism and Christocentrism become foundationally shaky in our minds.

...not everyone interprets scripture this way.

In my comments above I used the term "Biblicism" because it is a term most Conservative Evangelicals hold dear - and is generally true to. The movement (which I grew up in) prides itself in being "Bible believing." And I can see how one could arrive at an understanding of The Church Regnant while still being a Biblicist in the broad sense - there are plenty of examples of something that looks like Christendom throughout scripture, especially in the Old Testament. But I don't believe a person can get to Christian Nationalism or the Church Regnant using a Christocentric approach to scripture - our Anabaptist forebears certainly didn't.

[silentreader]

I will only comment on the last paragraph, because as a self-proclaimed 'Biblicist' I feel that the term is either being misused, or the use of the adjective 'broad' makes it mean something other than what i understand of it. So I would like to hear a clarification of what is actually meant here. My personal feeling is that true 'biblicism' IS Christocentric, so the distinction represented here is not helpful.

I agree, true Biblicism can only be Christocentric.

First thanks to both of you for reading to the end of my post.

Let me start by saying say that I agree with both of you that "true Biblicism IS/can only be Christocentric." The problem is that, in practice, this is often not the case. Many self-avowed "Biblicists" do not employ a Christocentric or "christologic" approach to understanding scripture. For example, there are Biblicists who promote the prosperity gospel, or dominion theology, or prophetic speculation, or in the case of this discussion, Christian nationalism. Looking across Christianity, there are all kinds of interpretations of scripture that run counter to the teachings and example of Christ.

Biblicsm (meaning a high regard for the inspiration and authority of scripture) is certainly important - but only if framed in the context of God's greatest and final revelation of Himself - Jesus. In other words, a Christocentric hermeneutic starts with and privileges the person, teachings and example of Jesus...and informs it's understanding of the rest of scripture. Jesus is the Word (Logos) of God to whom the word of God bears witness. A doctrinal conclusion that runs counter to the person and teachings of Jesus is an errant conclusion.

Mennonite historian J.C. Wenger talks of the protestant "flat Bible," where all of scripture is understood and interpreted with equal weight. In his booklet "Our Christ-centered Faith," Wenger went on to say:

• "The Swiss Brethren, the Austrian Hutterites, and the Dutch Mennonites had a Christ-centered Bible. The Lord Jesus was for them the most important theme of the Old Testament prophetic Scriptures -- the Savior or "Messiah" which was to come -- and was even more obviously the center of the New Testament Scriptures...
  
  Such "christological" interpretation meant seeing the Lord Jesus as both key to, and "Lord" of, the canonical Scriptures. They all witness to Him, and if we are to be faithful we must teach from the entire Bible precisely what He taught. We must understand God's law as He understood it. We must be Christlike, in the power of His Spirit. We must stress what He stressed in theology and ethics."

In this regard, I believe you both understand this perspective when you say:

That is, a true understanding of the Scripture clearly shows that Christ is the one single thread or topic that is woven throughout Scripture, by the hand of God. Jesus himself held a very high view of Moses & the prophets, and I think that we do him disservice if we think that we are entitled to go against his own example.

That is pointed out in the first chapter of the Gospel of John. Doubting the Christocentrism of the Biblical account of Creation is one of the reasons that both Biblicism and Christocentrism become foundationally shaky in our minds.

...not everyone interprets scripture this way.

In my comments above I used the term "Biblicism" because it is a term most Conservative Evangelicals hold dear - and is generally true to. The movement (which I grew up in) prides itself in being "Bible believing." And I can see how one could arrive at an understanding of The Church Regnant while still being a Biblicist in the broad sense - there are plenty of examples of something that looks like Christendom throughout scripture, especially in the Old Testament. But I don't believe a person can get to Christian Nationalism or the Church Regnant using a Christocentric approach to scripture - our Anabaptist forebears certainly didn't.

Sure, I think you have it right, in my statement the TRUE was mentally capitalized.
Biblicism probably has different nuances for different people/groups.
I think there are two other terms that are also sometimes used differently, the first one is 'reformed'. I recently heard a preacher, whom probably we would consider 'reformed', using the term in relation to other groups in a way that suggested he did not consider himself to be teaching 'reformed' doctrines.
The other word is theology. I think sometimes our theology becomes contaminated too much by personal opinion.
I believe the ISBE has a very good article on theology, perhaps defining it in its purest form.

[Neto]

Biblicsm (meaning a high regard for the inspiration and authority of scripture) ....

Thank you for your explanation of how you are defining the term. Understood in that context, I feel we have more agreement than not.
I can further define my personal meaning when I say that I am a Biblicist with two statements (in addition to that Jesus, and salvation through him, is the central theme of Scripture. But I do believe this is self evident with an open & honest reading of the entire Bible):
(Copying from the early Mennonite statements regarding the Scripture) "The Scripture is our authority for all matters of faith and practice."
and,
We go beyond Scripture at risk of heresy.

This first statement, I think, goes beyond a high regard for the inspiration and authority of scripture - it makes it our guide and 'authority' in the sense of demanding obedience. (When I applied for missionary service under Wycliffe, I was required to write out a full doctrinal statement. I was called in on the section about the Inerrancy of the Scripture, because they wanted a statement about the original manuscripts, and were not satisfied with the statement above. I told them that while I believed that, I was more interested in saying something about the Scripture as we have it, and how we should respond to it.)

But the second statement is what separates Biblicism as I understand it from those to whom you refer in the rest of your post, because of their acceptance of Systematic Theologies which fill in the "gaps" in Scripture. To me, true respect for the Scripture means that I cannot go about adding to it. (I do not know how to qualify the term 'Biblicist' to better describe what I mean by it.)

[Bootstrap]

Let me start by saying say that I agree with both of you that "true Biblicism IS/can only be Christocentric." The problem is that, in practice, this is often not the case. Many self-avowed "Biblicists" do not employ a Christocentric or "christologic" approach to understanding scripture. For example, there are Biblicists who promote the prosperity gospel, or dominion theology, or prophetic speculation, or in the case of this discussion, Christian nationalism. Looking across Christianity, there are all kinds of interpretations of scripture that run counter to the teachings and example of Christ.

Biblicsm (meaning a high regard for the inspiration and authority of scripture) is certainly important - but only if framed in the context of God's greatest and final revelation of Himself - Jesus. In other words, a Christocentric hermeneutic starts with and privileges the person, teachings and example of Jesus...and informs it's understanding of the rest of scripture. Jesus is the Word (Logos) of God to whom the word of God bears witness. A doctrinal conclusion that runs counter to the person and teachings of Jesus is an errant conclusion.

Mennonite historian J.C. Wenger talks of the protestant "flat Bible," where all of scripture is understood and interpreted with equal weight. In his booklet "Our Christ-centered Faith," Wenger went on to say:

• "The Swiss Brethren, the Austrian Hutterites, and the Dutch Mennonites had a Christ-centered Bible. The Lord Jesus was for them the most important theme of the Old Testament prophetic Scriptures -- the Savior or "Messiah" which was to come -- and was even more obviously the center of the New Testament Scriptures...
  
  Such "christological" interpretation meant seeing the Lord Jesus as both key to, and "Lord" of, the canonical Scriptures. They all witness to Him, and if we are to be faithful we must teach from the entire Bible precisely what He taught. We must understand God's law as He understood it. We must be Christlike, in the power of His Spirit. We must stress what He stressed in theology and ethics."

I agree with all of that. But I think that Mennonites have not historically done a great job of explaining the relationship between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Zwinglians did, with carefully worded systematic theologies that, IMHO, did not always get it right.

That's what I really love about The Bible Project, which has great book overviews, word studies, and thematic overviews. They also have a series on how to read the Bible.

They say that the Bible is:

One story that leads to Jesus.

And their book introductions and theme videos show how that is true for the Old Testament as well, explaining how each piece contributes to the overall story that leads to Jesus. I think this is very compatible with Mennonite theology, filling in the gaps for the Old Testament, bringing the entire Bible together in ways I find compelling.

[Wade]

I've only heard the term biblicist used by fundamental types that have an underlying root focus not on Christ but on salvation unfortunately. I like the christocentric name because if a person is truly christocentric they will notice being such also qualifies the person as a true biblicist:

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
John 5:39

[Judas Maccabeus]

Kind of echoes the difference between “The body of Christ “ and the “The body do Christianity “ in Verduin’s “The Anatomy of a Hybrid.”

J.M.

[Bootstrap]

I've only heard the term biblicist used by fundamental types that have an underlying root focus not on Christ but on salvation unfortunately. I like the christocentric name because if a person is truly christocentric they will notice being such also qualifies the person as a true biblicist:

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
John 5:39

Biblicist is not a word I use. I am more used to phrases like "Bible believer". I agree that a Christ-centered view of Scripture is really important.

So let's point people to Jesus as the key to all Scripture.

Whatever a "biblicist" is, I think it's a vague term, used differently by different people, and it may be good or bad depending on what is meant. See this article: What is a Biblicist? What is Biblicism?

Question: "What is a Biblicist? What is Biblicism?"

Answer: The term Biblicism is sometimes cast as an aspersion against those who interpret the Bible literally or who hold to the doctrine of sola scriptura. A Biblicist, as commonly defined, is someone who uses the Bible—and only the Bible—for his authority and source of knowledge, blindly holding to the Bible to guide him through every situation and inform him on every issue. Those leveling the charge of Biblicism often deny the doctrines of scriptural inerrancy or inspiration or at least seek to diminish the authority of Scripture. Sometimes Biblicists are accused of bibliolatry or “Bible worship.”

If we tell people we are against biblicists, they may conclude that we aren't Bible believers.