Keith Drury's Thinking Blog

Keith Drury is a model for me of a thinking/wondering Christian. Some of the things he is pondering can be read at http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/blog.thinking.agenda.htm

A lot of what he has been thinking about I have been wondering about, some of it for over 25 years now. Can't say I have arrived at the conclusive answer. Wouldn't it be wonderful to invite Keith over for coffee, and pursue even one of these topics?

DRURY writes:

3) ... I’ve been thinking that my greatest mistake has been theological—I’ve not fully grasped the importance of the church. I’ve been a true “man of the enlightenment” in emphasizing individuality… personal relationship with Jesus Christ, a personal walk with God, personal devotions—to the exclusion of the corporate elements of Christianity. I’ve got to think more on this before writing, but I’m increasingly thinking that there is no such thing as just a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” apart from a relationship with the church. I know, I know—this sounds incredibly Catholic. But I’ve been wrong to ignore the central role of the body of Christ in the life of a real Christian—not just to helps Christians be better people or to be a locker room for real life outside the church, but I’m increasingly pondering the thought that there is so salvation outside the church. I’m fed up with a world charmed by Jesus who reject the church. But the world’s dismissal of the church is not my central concern—but Christian’s dismissal of it


4) Which has led me to the question, What is the church? For instance we Protestants believe the Bible is the basis of Christian truth and practice. But we don’t. Most of us believe the Bible says things based on the church’s teaching. Indeed that is what our articles of religion are—a list of interpretations of what the Bible really says. But we keep saluting the flag of a “Bible-based doctrine” and we keep running up the sola scriptura flag and saluting it as good protestants. Yet how did we get our Bibles? Was it not the church led by the Spirit who decided what would get in our Bible what would not make the cut? (We’ve been recently reminded of this recently through the popular book (and coming movie) the Da Vinci Code. But who is the church? Is it some mystical spiritual body—the church unseen? What good is that? Then is it the broken frail self-centered fleshly contraption we know as denominations? I am thinking about the inadequacy of the notion that I personally am supposed to read my Bible personally to find out what God is saying to me. That sort of thinking leads to all kinds of wacky results including Waco, Texas. So if I am to read the Bible collectively, with the guidance of the church, which church? To what church will I give authority to help me understand what the Bible really says about abortion, war, speaking in tongues, divorce, and governments? To which church will I give that authority? My local church? But even a whole local church could be wrong couldn’t they? Who will be a “check” on my personal interpretation of Scripture? A denomination? The general collective agreement of evangelical scholars? The Pope? Who is “the church” if I grant authority to “the Church” to guide my reading of Scripture?

8) And speaking of worship, I’ve been pondering how worship among my students is so privatized—sort of like “having personal devotions in a group.” Is this a good thing? Is worship at its best a corporate thing or a personal thing? Certainly in heaven worship is corporate, What is corporate worship… and is there such a thing as when “the sum is greater than the parts”—when something different happens when a group worships together not as individuals – as sort of worship gestalt?

10) . I’ve been meditating a lot on the Bible and how we know what it means. The immature answer “It means clearly what it says” doesn’t work for me. I see too many Christians and denominations saying it means something different. So how do we know what it means? These questions of a bible hermeneutic are constantly on my mind the last five years—especially since I talk about it several hours a week with my colleague, Ken Schenck. As mentioned above, I see how the church has a role in determining what the Bible means, but I’ve got to think more about this before I write more on it. Right now I am objecting to the “original meaning” scholars who argue that the Bible can only mean what it originally meant. These scholars mock my students quoting Jeremiah as if God meant He actually had plans for them personally. This group of evangelical scholars argue that the meaning of the Bible is locked up in the original meaning—and SURPRISE—only they have the key, since the ordinary person can barely access the ancient meaning of the text, I am wondering if this is any better than the medieval Catholic church when the Pope controlled the meaning of the Bible. I’m increasingly being convinced the Bible can be read today by people today and God speaks through the Bible in ways the ancient writers would not even understand. This “Bible as sacrament” notion is how I was raised, how most of the evangelical church lives, and how all the most spiritual people I know use their Bible. Are all these folk wrong and the “original meaning mafia” right? Or is the “original meaning is the only meaning” crowd about to pass off into history as a new generation of (postmodern?) scholars rise up to scoff at their predecessors fetish with the original meaning—as if they could actually get it by their precious literary method. I’ve got to think a lot more on this because I’ll be getting some powerful Bible scholars at Asbury and elsewhere really mad if I write it. So I’ll just keep thinking about it.

15) Are we free to change sacraments? That is, can the church drop a “sacrament” or demote it and invent new ones? If a sacrament is a God-ordained means of grace—a channel through which God prefers to pour his power and grace—can God discard old sacraments like wineskins and raise up new one like holy laughter? Or more direct for revivalists like my own denomination, can we demote the sacrament of Holy Communion and replace it with personal devotions as the chief form of spiritual growth? And can we demote baptism and replace it with the altar call conversion as our new sacrament of induction into the kingdom? Or, is it OK for my students to consider “worship” (meaning the musical praise part of the service) as the primary sacrament—the primary channel of God’s changing grace for them today?

16) Should I even be thinking about these things? Is it good to think? Or is it dangerous? Should I spend more time dreaming up new programs for pastors to initiate in their local churches? These things I’m thinking about aren’t directly demanding in the “real life” local church. Has my thought life become representative of the ivory tower academic world more than grass roots local church? Is it a waste of time for me to think (and write) about such things?