letters to surfers

Question : Your commentary on Luke is obscurantist. It totally ignores a century of historical criticism.

by Robert Brow  (www.brow.on.ca)

Response : You correctly point out two very different models of how the Bible is to be used, and the kind of commentary that is needed for that purpose.

Historical criticism has assumed that the Gospels contain historical data which must be sifted, evaluated, and compared with other historical material from that period. It is the assured results of the best historical criticism that gives us the good news to be preached in our churches. I can see no evidence that such information does what I want the Word of God to do.

I take the four canonical Gospels as given to us by the eternal Son of God to build his church (Matthew 16:18). They are the assured results of his historical evaluation. As a preacher my task is to take exactly what is written, and explain the implications of each section for us in our day.

When that is done people appreciate "the Word" and the church is built up.

That has happened in church growth throughout the world.

model theology home | essays and articles | books | sermons | letters to surfers | comments