I assume, given his academic background, Michael is up to speed with the basics in biblical studies. Who would even consider writing a book on biblical laws - and which ones Christians should (or shouldn't) observe - without knowing something about underlying questions of authorship, for example, or the development of the canon?
So what do we do with statements like this?
The infallible Scriptures contain commands that are obsolete.Well, obviously there are obsolete injunctions in the Bible. Morrison accurately identifies not a few. But what's this business about "infallible Scriptures"? Infallible in what sense? The author doesn't explain.
Then there's a section that delves into Ephesians 2. "Paul begins by telling his readers...", "Paul is talking about...", "Paul then summarises..."
No he doesn't. Ephesians is, in scholarly parlance, deutero-Pauline, along with Colossians, 2 Thessalonians and the Pastoral epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus.) A good place to review the evidence might be in The Deutero-Pauline Letters (Gerhard Krodel, ed.) in the Proclamation Commentaries series. In fact, I'm surprised Michael doesn't have a copy on his bookshelf. If not, he can always click across to the handy guide provided by the nice United Methodist folk.
And Michael makes the same clanger with the other non-Pauline letters: "Paul uses the word Sabbath only in Colossians 2:16..."; "Paul cited the oxen and wages scriptures again in 1 Timothy 5..."
Sorry, whatever the qualities of these text, Paul almost certainly didn't write them. Even if you were desperate enough to pretend that Paul just might have written Ephesians or Colossians, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there is even less wiggle room with the Pastorals. Does Michael know this stuff, or is he just hoping that his readers are completely ignorant?
Either way, it doesn't exactly make the reader brim full of confidence that their guide knows a great deal about his subject. I suppose we might speculate that the author is trying to convince his readers by manipulating their fundamentalist assumptions against them. If so, he wouldn't be the first. But, honestly, how honest, how ethical is that?
But sadly, it gets worse...
Does Michael know this stuff, or is he just hoping that his readers are completely ignorant?
ReplyDeleteHe knows...that his readers are completely ignorant.
If Michael doesn't know about the Pauline forgeries then he is woefully uneducated and his credentials are bogus.
I wonder if he still believes that Simon Magus started the Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteOne thing about the Evangelical church which I attend. The pastor will come right out and say, "Well, we don't know who wrote the book of _________, but...."
It is downright dangerous to believe that one has total truth, or that one's church or favorite translation of the Bible is the single source for truth. There are many elements about our physical sojourn which are going to remain a mystery, despite our best efforts to suss it all out.
BB
Gavin, I'm not certain for sure, but I think I've divined your error: You say, Author Michael Morrison seems a well qualified man, with a Master of Divinity degree from Azusa and a PhD from Fuller.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that the Master of Divinity degree and his PhD are in cooking and the Divinity degree is specific to making candy?
Gavin, I suspect that "infallible" is a road sign to those who wonder whether GCI belongs in the evangelical semi or full fundamental camps.
ReplyDeleteGiven their desire to be seen as mainstream they are probably trying to make it clear that they haven't fallen into the opposite ditch of liberalism.