So to the extant that the people look towards the bible as the sole authority in matters of Christian morals, then yes, the bible is overemphasized.

So, I can agree that some sermons and Bible studies run too long, especially when we thrust unprepared youngsters into the pulpit, which we are wont to do for reasons both good and selfish. And I am convinced that the problem is often worse in churches with seminary-trained preachers who merely pontificate cerebrally and stroke the pride of people they depend on for offerings.

At the same time, (and poor preaching is partly to blame) there are those who would instead have us stand on our feet singing and clapping for 45 minutes and reduce the preaching of the Word to a bare minimum, squeezed in as a kind of concession to “old timers”. It always seems that the watchword to the messenger is, “Make it shorter,” while no such constraint is acceptable in other segments of our worship. (Willow Creek, I am told, went the opposite direction a few years ago—if megachurch precedents are important to anyone here.)

But I want to assert that our Lord has commanded and ordained that His kingdom shall primarily be spread through the preaching of the word [Mk 16] and making of disciples, that is teaching [Mt 28]. True to the Master, the Early Church made their first priority “the apostles’ teaching” [Ac 2:42].

So why do people get impatient with Bible studies and messages that are longer than 20 minutes? Why are today’s preachers, teachers and witnesses so irritating and/or boring? Aside from the obvious fact that our attention spans have been whittled away by TV and other modern contrivances, the most critical shortcoming is our lack of love—all around—both a lack of love in pastors for their flocks, and a reciprocal lack of love and support (esp. prayer support) for the pastor on the part of congregations. Both are essential but critically low. This means that, instead of teaching, preaching and making disciples out of love for Jesus and his flock, we do it out of a rational sense of duty. This sets me apart as distinctly NOT “post-modern”, but “modern” (which in a strange twist of fate is now understood to mean “antique”). I still believe in duty to God. But to move sinners hearts, there must be more than duty; there must be love and a work of the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit comes only where the “believers are all together in one accord.” When it happens, the Spirit enables us to preach (prophesy) powerfully. THAT is the first sign of the Spirit’s empowering, and makes us witnesses to the wonders of God and His Son. “And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men to myself.” [Jn 12:23] Job One, then, is to lift HIM up, Him alone. That’s not Bible-centered; it’s Jesus-centered. Can a bride and groom be too much in love? I think not.

My own personal problem is that I’ve been so often told, “Chris, you always act and talk as if you know you’re right.” The nuance is there in Joe’s original article, “Although many of us claim to be following the Bible alone, we read the Bible through lenses colored by our own culture, history and tradition.”—which I interpret as a politically correct caution not to sound too convinced or hold our beliefs too strongly. So I preach and teach tentatively, weakly, so as not to offendthe post-modern sensitivities of the disciples I’m trying to “go and make”. This is the most despicable of all preaching or teaching, like sails without wind and clouds without rain.

If, as many of us believe, these are the Last Days, rather than trying to reinvent our way of “doing church” according to the whims of our youth, let’s bear in mind our Lord’s prophecy that in the last days, “because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold.” [Mt 24:12] This is the greatest of all dangers. His prophecy applies to US Christians, not infidels. OUR love is growing cold. (I confess mine is.) Instead of preaching less, let us rather pray and preach and teach with greater and greater fervor and love for our Lord and his sheep, until “this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”

Sorry for sounding preachy. Well, no I’m not! or am I? No! I’m sorry for apologizing for sounding preachy. Maybe. Help! Come, Lord Jesus!

I applaud you for opening up a forum to discuss issues that have been on the minds of many of our church members, as well as, I’m sure, the larger Christian community. I agree with the overall point that you have evoked in this post: that our practical application of the Bible to our lives may be unwarrantedly dogmatic and anxiously narrow-minded, with regard to the Bible as object. However, this is not immediately apparent because of the provocative ambiguity of the question (a rhetorical strategy mastered by all great professors!!). Perhaps this is the best way to initiate conversation, to welcome a wealth of responses, but I feel it is then incumbent on us to synthesize what we have shared to come to a more particular understanding. It is perhaps the clarification of what it means to “emphasize the Bible too much” that would be most beneficial moving forward, as I will attempt to do.

Before I go any further, however, I would like to make a clarification in our definition of terms. I believe the definition of “sola scriptura” you provided is a bit incomplete and leads to somewhat of a straw man argument. Mark Driscoll provides some insight regarding the doctrine of “sola” (different than “solo”) scriptura in this sermon clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tuK2WJUlFM (beginning at 1:39), where we see that indeed, scripture should be viewed as the highest–and therefore not the only–authority. Admittedly, though, we still may be functionally using the definition you provided in our life, which is indeed problematic.

A good portion of the issues raised both in the post and the subsequent comments deal with issues beyond the scope of the text of the Bible, and refer more to activities that involve the Bible, or, put another way, the Bible as object. Subtly, yet quite ironically, you have made this distinction in the formation of your argument, using the Bible (as text) to demonstrate how the Bible (object) should not be over-emphasized in your example from Acts 2:42. In some ways, the Bible must saturate our lives, and we should have a scripturally governed imagination. And, as you and Dr. Armstrong have mentioned, the Bible’s text should remain our highest authority. However, with regards to the Bible as object (e.g. the biblical words we have (ab)normalized into our vocabulary; our heavy emphasis on the activities of studying the Bible and writing testimonies) we should exercise more discernment.

I look forward to the continued progress of this online community.

The serious issue is when one sticks to one kind of view and interpretation and fears to take anything else. In order that the Bible is relavant to the people, unwritten questions from people have to be raised and examined. We may not have all the answers, but I believe that Bible is deep enough to take every challenges.

To me, the more thought-provoking question is: “Can we emphasize THE BIBLE ITSELF too much?” I confess that I have been wondering about this question ever since one evangelical Christian scholar-friend I know nearly converted to Roman Catholicism over this very question.

I think it is likely the case that we over-emphasize the Bible in the ways we arrange our community lives together as believers (as Joe suggests). But I sort of wonder if the deeper issue is the theology (whether we can name it or not) that leads us to arrange ourselves socially around the Bible in the first place (whether it be in the way we talk about ourselves, or the ways we spend time together). For evangelicals, is this all truly explained by a misused principle of sola scriptura, or something else? I have to think about this one a bit.

It was mentioned above that perhaps Acts 2:42 depicts a model for a balanced Christian tradition. If so, are Christians from the evangelical tradition simply over-emphasizing the devotion to the “apostle’s teaching”? Are Christians from the more contemplative traditions over-emphasizing prayer? Are Christians from the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox traditions over-emphasizing the “breaking of bread?”(if this is referring to the Eucharist in Acts 2:42)? I’ll stop there since I can’t think of which Christian tradition might be over-emphasizing “fellowship” (social justice-driven Christian traditions?)

Thinking of my Christian scholar-friend, I sort of wonder from time to time which Christian tradition in existence today balances Acts 2:42 well enough that warrants serious “conversion” to it out of Christian faithfulness. Or should I stick to my current, “Create-my-own evangelical-mutt, American-style, buffet-approach to Christian living that draws flavors from every Christian tradition? Or maybe just fall back to the de-facto pseudo-Reformed tradition of my particular church community, especially since my nephew’s middle name is Calvin, and my first name is John? :)

Awesome question. Your example from Acts 2:42 is a good one. In the ancient world Christians got together, prayed, read a few verses, sung some hymns, had communion etc. The Bible-centered/sermon-centered worship service is a product of the Reformation. We need a balance between the two. Look at how short Jesus’ parables are! Why are we sermonizing for an hour or having hour and a half Bible studies? Paul Zahl in his book Grace in Practice calls for sermons to be 10-20 minutes. That comes after a lifetime of pastoring and mentoring pastors.

What I’ve experienced is that a healthy Christian has the Bible as the “backbone” of life, and has tradition, reason, and experience as the “body” of life.

I would insert a side note here: I am firmly against the “cultural Christian mindset” that I’ve seen so prevelant in America. That is, some people believe that a Christian can only see a Christian auto mechanice, go to see Christian movies, have a Christian baby-sitter, and so-on. They think that is the only way to justify activities outside of Bible study. I would rather not even tell people I am a Christian or know that I study the Bible and teach the Bible. I would much rather have them ask me if I am a Christian by my behavior, just as Jesus insisted that people not call him Christ. This has happend several times in my workplaces, and it gives great confirmation and seems to be a better witness.

I would present a more important question though: Is it possible to emphasize certain parts or verses of the Bible too much? This is the greater danger, and is a resounding “yes”. We need a variety of Bible input from a variety of people for our spirits to be healthy. To draw on a UBF example, our Great Lakes Region chapters have been expanding our conferences the last five or six years. We include passages from books like Haggai and Psalms. We’ve been adding break-out sessions covering a wide array of topics such as marriage relationship growth, financial stewardship and visa problem resolution. This last conference we even had an excellent presentation of some of C.S. Lewis’ works (thanks Tuf!).

In the end, I think we need to have balance when it comes to the Bible. And while we can emphasize the Bible passages too much at times, I suggest that we must always come back to the Bible as a sounding board and end with God.

As a young parent, one of the best pieces of advice I was given was by an elder of our ministry who said, “Don’t make them write testimonies. It was my biggest mistake as a parent.” In essence, this was what he believed inoculated (my word, just in case he wouldn’t agree with it) his children from a desire to know God more. I also don’t think we should send our kids to Christian schools (although sometimes it is necessary if our children are having a very tough time in other types). I don’t think kids thrive when surrounded ALL DAY, EVERYDAY by Christianity. It is creating a life for them that does not exist in reality. If we want our kids to be strong Christians who work on the front lines of gospel ministry, we had better help them understand fully the terrain in which they will be working. We need to arm them with the reality of the world, while arming them with the truth of the gospel. Reality cannot be taught to them by telling them “this is how the world is…” They need to see it and understand it first hand (note, I do not think they need to experience it or participate in sin firsthand).

As a Bible teacher, about 7 years ago I was stumped with one of my Bible students and his difficult life. I had given him every cliche I could think of – by faith, pray about it, read the Bible – and to my surprise none of them helped. When I went to see our Pastor with this young man, he didn’t mention the Bible one time. He just talked to the young man about his practical life, what was happening, what could be done to help, what had happened to get there, and so on. We then prayed and ended. I understood then that sometimes Bible teachers need to help people with what they need most. If it is directly related to the Bible and their understanding of God’s word, then so be it. If they need practical help, then give it. The trick is, knowing what people need most at the time.