I am quoting his question on this topic for our dicussion.
"Further, I still need clarification in my mind in terms of "how the Bible is used." Is appealing to the Bible the same as appealing to a math book? A phone book? An almanac? A collection of Emerson? What sort of "authority" is the Bible? And if Christian denominations cannot agree, on what basis then CAN we base our evidence to be sifted, discussed, debated???"
15 comments:
Wow. "How ought the Bible be used?"
We're answering this in the context of creating some kind of basis for dialogue, inquiry, testing of heresy, etc.
Its interesting that the early church never laid out a systematic plan for "how the Bible ought to be used." Instead, they called it kanon (canon) - "rod, rule, measurement, standard" (however you want to translate that Greek word.
The canon they chose (solidified by year 350 or whenever) was the measurement. Yet its not a standard like any standard used in the scientific community.
If we want to measure length, we'd use meters (or feet/yards I suppose). But these are standard measurements. No one interprets a meter to be as long as a bus and someone else interpets a meter to be as long as the sole of my shoe. No. We all agree on what a meter is.
Contrast this with the Bible as canon/standard/ruler/rod. The interpretations vary widely. They did in the early centuries (hence large councils were needed to determine orthodoxy vs. heresy) and they have in these later centuries (post-Reformation).
One solution, I suppose, is the Roman Catholic answer: the Church will tell you. And it ultimately has one Pope who has the ultimate infallible say when seated at St. Peter's. OK. Thats one solution to our dilemma. But as inheritors of the Reformation we reject submission to one person's understanding.
The "curse" of such Protestant thinking, however, is that we are obviously free to disagree. Thus there may be many general agreements on how "long a meter is" but the nitpicky details may reveal that we're all "off" by a few centimeters or so. :)
This doesn't help our discussion, I fear, to look to the early church OR the Reformation church, so in my next post I'll attempt a different angle.
REV
Attempt #2. If we reject the more scientific style, proof-texting vulnerable, empirical-based Enlightenment approach to the Bible as canon, then we are free to explore other options as to what sort of "canon" this is.
Now even saying all that is going to make the laity in most Protestant churches (especially evangelicals) nervous. "What? What are you saying?! That the Bible isn't literally true?" Or some such argument typically comes up when that scientific etc. approach is rejected.
We just have to deal with this. The emerging church seems very willing to deal with this. The traditional Builder-Boomer churches seem unwilling. The Busters-Xers... who knows... so few of them attend churches anyway... ;)
So "ought the Bible be used" more like Emerson then? Less like an almanac or book of facts? Does it carry authority like Shakespeare? And less like a math book?
Tom Wright proposes a fascinating narrative view on canon. The biblical canon, he proposes, is much like the first 4 acts of a Shakespearean play. The modern church then lives out act 5. We'd never live out the story in such a way that would be inconsistent with the flow of the narrative to that point, but that said we'd also not treat the earlier parts of the play as if they were a mere almanac of information.
Emerging churches gobble this sort of thing up. Story. Narrative. Relationship (to God, to others, to the earth). But our traditional churches get very nervous.
Math books and almanacs are solid, firm, unmoveable (even though we've demonstrated science actually isn't as fixed as we might hope). Static = good. Yet Wright is (along with emerging movements) proposing a dynamic. A relational, story-style dynamic. A dance between God and humanity. Dancing makes evangelicals (especially, though I don't mean to pick on just them) nervous.
So there's a proposal for anyone to comment on: Tom Wright's the canon as story (a Shakespearean play). And insofar as story carries authority (though of a different kind than a math book), the Bible has authority.
Thoughts???
REV
This is a touchy topic, in part because the emotional attachment to our understanding as to how to approach the Bible, but this is also a touch topic because we don't want to undermine the authority of the Scriptures even as we talk about what kind of 'authority' it has. At times this is the result of going down the 'bible as literature' pathy, and yet not realizing and understanding that the Bible is literature takes us down the "Golden Tablets" path.
Last Wednesday I taught a class on how to read and understand parables. When I got to the part where I began to explain the literary devices which Mark used in writing Mark 4, the eyes became quite large. There seems to be a thought that if the writers of the gospels actually thought about what they were writing, and used specific literary devices then the inspiration of the writings are invalidated. Again, going back to what I refer to as the "Golden Tablets" approach.
So, question, how can we acknowledge and understand the literary genre and devices used in Scripture and still maintain inspiration which leads to authority?
A great question.
I've experienced similar reactions. And if it truly is a battle of "my golden tablets vs. yours" then the Christians will forever debate the Latter Day Saints will forever debate the Muslims will forever debate the Hindus. All four groups claim to have religious text revealed by a higher power to an individual or numerous individuals.
But you ask a good question. Perhaps we need to back track and ask about inspiration. What is inspiration?
Here we're running dangerously close to a circle, however. "How do you know the Bible is inspired?" "Because the Bible says so." "Well, why do you trust the Bible?" "Because its inspired." Uhhhh....
The early church didn't have the canon we do. They had OT canon (how "set" that was is debated by scholars, but the point is, it was there). And yet the early church (as evidenced in numerous NT letters) confronted false teaching constantly. "Authority" rested in the apostles and the overseers/elders they raised up.
Yet any talk of apostolic authority immediately gets Protestants nervous because that is precisely what the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches claim!!! If canon was set somewhere AD 350-380 then on what basis do we Protestants soooooo boldy claim "sola scriptura!"
Not that sola scripture is bad, per se, its just not immediately obvious in light of church history.
Hmmmm.... now where are we? Any suggestions?
REV
This perhaps is where I should share a comment from my Orthodox freind. Regarding the Bible, he asked me this, "Which came first, the Bible or the Church?" No, this is not the pointless chicken/egg question! :) He has a point, I think - at least the Orthodox Church thinks. The early church was in existence - active, expandig, defending - for the first few hundred years without an authoritative canon of NT Scripture. This is not to say that they did not have many of the writings that we now know as the NT, but just that they had not had the need to come together to define canon. It was tied, as REV mentioned to the authority of the Apostles - each writing either being authored by or approved by one of the original Apostles.
So where does that leave us with our Protestant view of the authority of the NT Scriptures? For my Orthodox friend this reality provides the bases for the tradition of the Church to be very close to equally authoritative as the NT. Therefore, some of their doctrine is based more heavily on church tradition than on the NT. He views this as completely logical and not at all insulting to the authority of the NT. This is quite different for me...had to think about it for quite a while. It certainly does explain where the Orthodox church (as described by my friend) is coming from.
Question: Does this Orthodox view of the NT Scriptures hold to a high authority and inspiration, or does it make the NT less than authoritative from a Protestant perspective?
Okay, so I was a part of a group conversation the other day where a pastor made the comment about the Bible that "it presents itself as a set of propositions." I did my best not to fall out of my chair. Is it really possible that a person who has spent several years studying the Bible could hold such a position? Are poems propositions? Are stories propositions? Are historical accounts propositions? Really?
OK so this is the follow up blog. If the NT writings follow at a minimum very closely to apostolic teaching (a strict inerrantist would say "exactly"), then we can actually (strangely, perhaps) agree with Roman Catholic and Orthodox approaches on apostolic authority by agreeing with them that the NT accurately reflects the stories, apocalypses, hymns, letters, and teaching of the apostolic community. Thus we'd actually be agreeing the church came before the Bible.
The hang up for me, then, as a Protestant is how either of those two systems can justify things that come AFTER the NT was written. Mary's high place in the RCC wasn't there prior to the first century's end (I could be wrong, of course, but I'd be shocked). So how does this anachronistic interpolation get read back into the pages of the NT if they reflect apostolic authority of the church?
(Thats just one example, but it evidences what I'm talking about here). It would seem to me that the burden on church authority still must be adequately justified by both RCC and Orthodox churches. We Protestants MUST do the same with all our quirky traditions as well. For we too are far from the apostolic community in many ways.
SO I say this not to point fingers, but rather to really press the issue. If "church tradition" based on "the church came before the Bible" MEANS "therefore we can take it or leave it with the NT," then I'm not certain (1) that that's why the NT writings were written in the first place (e.g. see intro to Luke's gospel - clearly "other accounts" were beginning to threaten orthodoxy) and (2) that that's why canon (as "rod" or "standard") was assembled.
It seems to me that a good many letters of Paul and John are consumed precisely with confronted FALSE TEACHING. Evidently a concrete, written set of stories, poems, hymns, letters created something less flexible than "apostolic authority."
As you pointed out with the NT Wright article, Wright discusses 2 Cortinthians and "super apostles." Obviously a threat was looming in the first century. And so Christians (like Luke) began to write, so that the Theophilus' of the world would know the truth concerning things.
Thoughts?
Enough for now
REV
I guess I have a question hear. Do you put as much weight to what Paul writes as you do to what Jesus said?
That's a great question Troy! My response is 'yes.' However, the way that I seek to understand Paul and the other writings in the NT is through Jesus. Just as I seek to understand Jesus through the OT writings. It concerns me when some try to reverse this informative order - understanding Jesus' teaching through their prior reading of Paul, Peter, John, etc... So yes, I do give as much weight to Paul as I read his writings through the lens of Jesus' teaching - which by the way is what I believe Paul would want.
What do you think REV and Troy?
I would agree along this line of reasoning that Jeff began. I think Paul would want an informed OT hermeneutic that flowed into NT writings, guided in and based upon illumination from the Holy Spirit, that was rooted in the understanding and centrality of Jesus as Lord. Thats a mouthful, but I don't know how else to summarize my understanding of Paul's approach.
Following on your question, Troy, I would adhere to the gospel writers' recordings of Jesus' sayings over Paul's (or anyone else's) if I felt a contradiction were in place. Such a statement of course immediately gets the inerrancy debate stirred up.
"Red letter Christians" do this, for example. If Jesus said it, thats what compells them. Paul and John are sort of a side dish. That to me seems awfully risky, though, not only because the early church had a view of canon (and to some extent I owe my allegiance to their wisdom), but also because the early churches themselves were planted by Paul and John, not Jesus. Jesus began a movement. That movement led to church planting.
Soooo... where the "red letter" folks go wrong, I believe, is not just in the betrayal of "canon," but also in the lack of historical understanding. Paul and his disciples started a hefty number of the churches in the Mediterranean. And so the western church TO THIS DAY is heavily Pauline in many of its doctrines, practices, etc.
ALL THIS SAID, I'm also not sure I want to jump in bed with the "all things equal"/"inerrancy"/"let scripture interpret scripture" folks. There are too many SEEMING "contradictions" biblically to go this route. Its too simplistic a hermeneutic (and from which arises proof texting). Soooo... I want to say the "red letter" folks are onto something BUT I want to deny them because of history and canon.
Its a quandary I've not solved since seminary. And so I still swim in the muddied waters pulling at various vines to see what I might be able to hang on to.
REV
At what point did Paul's words start holding as much authority as Jesus' words?
Didn't Jesus claim to have more authority than Abraham, Jacob and maybe more? Did he have more authority than all of the OT prophets?
What is the difference between Paul's words and mine?
I am not saying that my words ought to hold the same weight as Paul's. But I think that the answer to that question is different than the answer to "What is the difference between my words and Jesus' words."
I am afraid that the Bible is becoming dangerously close to becoming the fourth person of the Trinity.
Would the Church as we know it be more adversely affected if we took away the Holy Spirit or the Holy Bible. Which would create a bigger uproar?
That is a good question, Troy. I think that in the conservative evanglical circles the Bible would be missed more than the Spirit. On this point I think that we need to be challenged.
The writings of Paul enjoyed acceptance quite early, along with the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Formally it wasn't until the late 300's A.D. that the NT canon was agreed upon. But why would the writings of Paul, Peter, James, John, and the writers of the Gospels carry authority along with Jesus? Because they were either eyewitnesses or approved by eyewitnesses of Jesus life and teaching, and therefore were deemed reliable in communicating and applying in their context what Jesus taught.
The problem, as I see it, is that as Western Modern Christians we think that we have found in Paul a kindred spirit who teaches things that we like. So, we focus predominately on his writings and then look back to Jesus to back up Paul. The order is the wrong way round, and quite likely Paul, Peter, John, and James will read much different after reading Jesus first.
Thank you both. This is a good discussion.
First, on the nature of the "fourth person of the Trinity" -- well said, Troy, I affirm that insight and have seen it in my denominational tradition (and other evangelical streams as well). Some of my sem profs called it "bibliolatry." And I agree with Jeff, sadly... Bible probably would be missed more than the Spirit.
Secondly, Paul gets "equal weight" to Jesus in many of our Bible circles because of (1) the inerrancy of the canon doctrine ("all scripture"), (2) (and this is a spin off of #1)... therefore no scripture contradicts any other scripture, so "weightedness" is irrelevant, (3) therefore Paul has as much weight as all other books of the Bible.
Third, Paul is more "user friendly" than Jesus. Paul gives us specifics on how to set up a church, run a church, have leadership, etc. (not that our modern churches listen to him much, but he's a warm blanket even so). Jesus tells us almost nothing about this. He says things like "blessed are the poor" and "love your enemy" and "I am the good shepherd." If I were to say these exact same things in a sermon, my congregation would be up in arms that I'm not being "practical" or "application-oriented" enough in my sermons.
Jesus teaches and embodies a way of life. THE way of life. Paul teaches how churches function, how to function in the church, how to live, what to do and say, the nuts and bolts. Thats the perception I get from my laity (I just did a class on "Romans"). They like Paul. Its not that they don't like Jesus, its just that He's not so, well, "user-friendly."
"Love my enemy"?! "Well, how am I supposed to do that?!"
I digress. Onto the matter then of canon. Once we can somehow say what the canon IS, we can then begin to look at Jesus "vs." Paul, John, Peter, etc. (I use that "vs." very loosely). If we disagree with the "equal/inerrant" canon view, fine, but then what do we replace it with? What KIND of authority does Paul have? Can we take it or leave it? Are the "red letter Christians" onto something?
REV
Can inerrant mean historically correct?
What meaning has it had beyond that?
The doctrine of inerrancy actually has a wide range of meaning. Jeff knows of a spectrum - Jeff, could you maybe post that spectrum? Is it from Millard Erickson?
Anyway, your implied meaning would be one of those options. In other words an "inerrant" document would be one that reports the facts, sort of video camera style.
Inerrant document might read: "Jesus was crucified." So an errant document might read: "Jesus was taken up to heaven prior to being crucified." (This would be an actual debate, by the way, between Christians and Muslims).
So Troy if we use that standard of "inerrancy" for the Bible, then we'd say that the Bible accurately reflects history - "what actually happened."
Questions:
(1) what if biblical texts disagree? (my denomination, for example, solves this dilemma by saying "inerrant in the original documents" - and since we don't have the originals we're not quite sure what to make of our modern texts).
(2) what means of verification is at our disposal? Archaelogy? Geology? Astronomy? Traditional apologetics goes this route. Some others argue that such attempts are pointless.
(3) the phrase "what actually happened" takes on interesting meaning in the realm of interpretation. So what does inerrancy mean in light of interpretation. Often biblical writers will do a "video taping" of events AND THEN interpret them. Are both "inerrant"? or just the event?
Enough questions for now
REV
Post a Comment