Two conversations about the Bible led Ryan Dueck to offer his perspective on scripture.
Do I “believe” in the Bible? No, I don’t. I believe in the God that the Bible points us toward. I don’t feel compelled to use words like “inerrant,” “perspicacious,” “infallible,” or any of the other words adopted by well-meaning and pious folks to convince others (and themselves) that they believe strongly or rightly enough. I believe God speaks through the Bible. I believe the Bible is trustworthy and sufficient to accomplish the purposes God has intended it to accomplish. I don’t feel compelled to say more (or less) than that.
The Bible is not always an easy book to live with, but it is an important way in which God has chosen to make himself known and is to be honoured as such. The church must continue to wrestle with how to read it, why to read it, and what reading it ought to lead to. We must pass on an understanding of how to live with the Bible to the next generation that does not repeat the dead-ends that are such a familiar part of the contemporary landscape.
Read the whole post. I tend to agree. The Bible is trustworthy, and it’s not always an easy book to live with. These sentiments express the tension well.
I belong to the school that says, “We believe in Jesus, so we trust the Bible.” There are good reasons to affirm the historical reliability of the gospels. Their testimony connects us in substance to Jesus, who attracts first our curiosity and then our faith. Once that step is made, the portrait of Jesus there instructs us on how to approach the rest of scripture. We trust the Old Testament because he affirmed it — he died with its words in his mouth. We trust the New Testament because he commissioned disciples as his messengers, and the writings of the New Testament distill that message in its earliest form. This way of framing the matter appeals to me: if we believe in Jesus, we trust the Bible.
But Jesus didn’t model an uncritical acceptance of scripture. He altered things. He nullified the Levitical food laws, for example, a key part of Jewish identity. The early Christians followed his example when they set aside circumcision, even though Genesis describes it as an “everlasting covenant.” He reinterpreted Sabbath keeping. Even more, Jesus’ claims about himself, confirmed in the resurrection, forced a radical reappraisal of Old Testament monotheism. Approaching the New Testament can be similarly complicated. The gospels portray Jesus’ messengers as human and fallible. They stumbled along like the rest of us. We trust their testimony on central issues, but we need not uncritically accept every word they say, particularly on secondary things. When they teach the sufficiency of Christ or the necessity of love, there we are on safe ground.
Martin Luther said the Bible is a manger in which we find the Christ child. He grew up to be the Savior of the world (Jn 4.42). When the Bible brings us to the Savior, it fulfills its purpose.
Nice post Chris. I take a little different approach not finding a lot of validity in the concept of the bible. I think we get a more accurate and nuanced approach when we take it book by book. Understanding its history allows me to look at the various texts in an informed and critical manner. I trust the gospel of thomas more than what paul said as an easy example.
How do you reconcile this belief with the claim Jesus made in the gospels that he was not changing one jot or tittle of the law?
Re: “if we believe in Jesus, we trust the Bible.”
How do you know Jesus outside of the Bible? Through the church teachings or tradition? Through personal revelation to you? Through reason?
In your estimation, what is the Bible? Is the Bible the testimony of the disciples or church? Or is it the testimony of God?
Re: “When they teach the sufficiency of Christ or the necessity of love, there we are on safe ground.”
How do you know this? How did you get these first principles, these foundations of truth for screening the Bible?
What do you say to Jews about the Torah, their high sacred regard for it? “Believe in Jesus and you will see the truth?”
It would not surprise me if Jesus had a higher view of scripture, most especially the Torah, than the views you and Ryan have expressed. He was a Jew.
I don’t think Chris or I have communicated a “low” view of Scripture. What constitutes a “high” view of Scripture? In my experience, it is often those who claim to have the most exalted theology of Scripture who are the most prone to flattening the text, ignoring genre, context, etc. For me, it’s no virtue to take the text so “seriously” that it all has to communicate in the same way at the same time. Even in the Jewish tradition, unless I am mistaken, the tradition of midrash points to the ability to have a very high view of of Scripture while at the same time creatively going beyond previous readings/interpretations. Jesus certainly seemed to do this a lot, as Chris says.
Re: “In your estimation, what is the Bible? Is the Bible the testimony of the disciples or church? Or is it the testimony of God?”
I won’t presume to speak for Chris (you did after all, address your questions to him, not me!), but I would have a very simple answer to these questions. Yes.
Ken, you have so many questions. I’ll answer one… I know about Jesus through the testimony of the Gospel writers, and I know Jesus through the inner witness of the Spirit. Knowing Jesus, I have more questions already than I can answer, but I also have the one answer that satisfies.
Ryan, thanks again for your thought stimulating post.
Multiconstruct (interesting name), peace to you.
Ryan,
I agree that you (and Chris) do not have a low view of scripture. It strikes me as kind of a moderate view, or at least what would be considered moderate in a liberal protestant denomination.
I do have the sense that Jesus had a higher view, especially of the Torah. I made this comparison related to Chris’ connection of the authority of scripture with Jesus.
My impression is not that you and Chris are putting down the Bible. My impression is that you are trying to put distance between yourselves and more conservative Christians on the subject of Biblical authority. I read your and Chris’ criticisms as directed at conservative Christians rather than at the Bible itself.
Ken, I’m trying to chart a middle course between the left and the right on biblical authority… looking back on what I wrote, it seems a hybrid of the two. As to Jesus: I’d say he saw himself as higher than the Torah. It’s one of the things that got him in big trouble.
Yes, I recognize your effort to chart a middle course, and its hybrid character. You were placing distance between yourself and liberals as well as conservatives. (This is a dangerous stance in the antagonistic environment of the liberal denominations. It leaves one with no allies.)
I don’t think Jesus saw himself as higher than the Torah. As the fulfillment of the prophecies, he was the fulfillment of Torah. Many of his teachings showed just how precious he considered the Torah. For example, what he said about divorce showed how seriously he took the commandment about adultery, or about hate, how seriously he took the commandment to not kill. Almost every thing that Jesus said that is recounted in the New Testament comes from the Old Testament and almost every action has a precedent in the Old Testament.
I think that Jesus was not a conservative, liberal or moderate Christian. He was a Jew. He loved the Torah and had a high view of it.
I think it is better to approach liberal and conservative Christians with sympathy and appreciation of what they each seek to accomplish, than to keep either or both at a distance.
There is great faith behind the liberal movement in Christianity, and just as great faith behind the conservative movement.