Exactly what is scripture?
But first, a warning: If you’re the type of person who stands on the unwavering fact that the Bible is literally true, this might not be for you. If you’ve read any of my posts, you know that I ask questions, and introduce uncertainty and complexity into the equation, to promote less rigid beliefs and convictions, and to encourage people to be on a journey focused on seeking truth, rather than claiming they already have it. So if you practice bibliolatry, you probably ought to stop reading now.
Bible belief as Christian identity
Have you ever heard someone say, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it?” I’ve heard it many times, and most often when someone is done with conversation, and decides to assert Biblical authority on a topic, since God has declared the authoritative and final word on the topic via His written word. Fun fact - this phrase is the title of a song released in 1975 by The Harvest Singers.
Have you ever noticed how churches will publish or post a statement of beliefs which very often includes a statement on what church leadership believes about the Bible? Here is an example from a church I discovered from a YouTube video. I wonder if they do this to define the boundaries of what they consider to be Christian belief, or if it’s an attempt to steer people away from attending if they believe differently - I’m really not sure - I’ve never bothered to ask why they feel it is necessary. However, there are certain words utilized to convey their view of scripture as either “inspired” or “inerrant” or “infallible”. If you’ve not seen it before, it’s worth checking out The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. It’s a bold statement, and while a popular view with some groups of Christian believers, is found to be problematic by others.
Ultimately, I see both a number of individual Christians and churches anchoring their identities to a particular view (opinion) of the Bible. I’m not of the opinion this is a good thing to do.
Viewpoints on the Bible are diverse
It’s interesting the wide range of Christian viewpoints on what the Bible is and how it ought to be used. It can be a point of great division within the Christian community, with some Christians asserting a literalist view of the Bible as a comprehensively inerrant message from God. Other Christians see a generalized holistic story of a creator-God and a story of man’s redemption and salvation by the loving actions of this creator-God, but without regarding the Bible as literally true in every word and story.
I write this knowing that Christians are divided on their perspectives of scripture, and also that some Christians use their personal perspective of scripture to judge and even condemn both Christian believers and nonbelievers, and to assert their view of scripture is “right” and other views of scripture are “wrong”. By my observation, this seems most prevalent among confident faithful Biblical literalists (of the official King James English translation). I’m fascinated by the confidence some people assert in their view of the Bible. It makes me wonder if they are aware of early Christian history, and how the Bible came to be what it is.
All scripture is God-breathed
Back to the podcast I listened to, where the phrase “all scripture is God-breathed” was used. This is, of course, a reference to 2nd Timothy 3:16, where Paul is writing to instruct Timothy. Here is the passage in its fuller context:
10 You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11 persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. 12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
When this verse came up in the podcast interview, for the first time I realized Paul said this before there even was a Bible, and before all the currently accepted books of the Bible were written! Yet this verse is the most frequently used to assert Biblical inerrancy for all of the Bible. This realization produced some new questions for me.
So what counts as God-breathed scripture?
Paul writes this around AD 66. Here is a link to a chronology of the books of the Bible. Most certainly Paul is referring to writings (the Greek word for scripture equates to “writings”) which precede him, and the context suggests the Old Testament, since he indicates Timothy learned the scriptures from infancy. Was Paul also referring to what other disciples wrote before him, like the gospels? Was Paul also referring to his own previous letters to the various churches? Did Paul consider what he was writing to Timothy as scripture? Does his statement limit what can be considered scripture to what has already been written?
Even though communication of that time was very different than now, we know that writings of Paul and other disciples were being shared and distributed. For example 2 Peter 3:14-16 demonstrates Peter’s awareness of Paul’s writings.
It’s good to know a little history
I wonder how many Christians today are familiar with early Christianity - the period of time after Jesus died, and several hundred years thereafter. Do people know about people like Clement and Polycarp, Origen and Irenaeus, and all of the writings which occurred by the hands of the early Christian leaders beyond the twelve disciples and Paul? Do people know about the sects and offshoots of Christianity, and the efforts to stamp out what was viewed as heretical beliefs?
Do people know about the various compilations of writings which different Christian leaders used as “canon”, and a precursor to what eventually became a version of the Bible? Do people know about the councils of church leaders which were held, like the Council of Nicaea, and the Council of Trent, and other councils in between, where church leaders debated what should, and what should not be included in the Bible? Looking back, what we’ve done is entrusted these devout Christians from a long, long time ago to determine what generations after them have used as a guide to practice the Christian faith. When I first became interested in the history of Christianity (and I believe all Christians should be familiar with the history of Christianity), someone further along their faith journey recommended to me the two-volume The Story of Christianity written by Justo Gonzalez. It’s enough to give a good overview, without being so much that one can’t get through it. Of course, there are modernized video and audio versions of Christian history which might suit a modern technophile better. For those interested in the writings of early Christians beyond what is in the Bible, here is a very good source.
Which Bible is authoritative?
Here’s a question - which Bible is the correct one to use? And I’m not talking about translations. I’m talking about the Bibles which differ in which books are included. There are differences in the canons of the modern Protestant bible, the Roman Catholic bible, and the Eastern Orthodox bible. There are different opinions on the Apocrypha, and its standing relative to other books of the bible. There are different opinions even on the Revelation of John. So which is the “right” one to claim as literally true and authoritative? And we haven’t even begun questions about bible translations, and the complexities involved in conveying original meanings in different languages!
My point is that I’ve encountered many Christians with very fixed and narrow views of what the Bible is, and how it should be used. If they know all of this about Christian history, and the difficulty with settling on a single universal Bible (which isn’t the case), then how do some Christians become so adamant about their personal view of the Bible? I don’t find fixed and narrow views helpful in general, and certainly not here, where we have an important book of writings about very important spiritual matters. So let’s redirect the questions to more important things.
What’s the purpose of scripture?
These writings have a purpose, and I like staying focused on the big picture, rather than dwelling on minutia. There is a big picture when it comes to scripture, and the way I see it, there are two primary purposes of scripture, with the first, far more significant and important than the second
Scripture as testimony
The story of the Bible as a whole is a testimony and witness to our creator God, and the relationship God has with his creation, and specifically humans, made possible through His son and messenger Jesus Christ. Those who were eyewitnesses to Jesus were compelled to write down what they witnessed, as they became aware that Jesus was the fulfillment of what was written in their (Old Testament) scriptures. It was important enough to record, for the benefit of humankind. And we (Christians) can make use of scripture to show people why we believe what we do. This is what is most important, and I hope all Christians can agree on.
Scripture as authoritative instruction
A secondary purpose (in my opinion) is to serve as a guide for how to live out Christian belief. This is where we end up with a wide range of perspectives among Christians as to how authoritative this guidance is, and whether we view these instructions as flexible and adaptable to changing cultures, or whether these instructions are fixed, unchangeable, inerrant and literally true for all people for all ages to come.
There’s always a cultural context to communication. The way we speak and write today is influenced by our culture, and it’s fair to say that this has always held true. So how can we have authoritative instruction for living out Christianity, if our guidebook is imperfectly translated into another language, and our modern cultural context impacts our personal interpretation of the words we read? Is it even possible to expect all Christians to come to common understandings of scripture? Even those who claim to be “Spirit-filled” believers disagree on what passages of scripture mean. So who is right, and who is wrong?
Staying on the straight and narrow
For me, I’d rather view the Bible as a means to point me to Jesus, and help me understand God as the creator, and generally how He wants humankind to live, and namely out of a position of humility, love and charity. The Bible teaches us what God has done for us, and how we can be guided by His presence among us (the Holy Spirit). I’ve never been led in the wrong direction by the Holy Spirit (now discerning what a person receives from the Holy Spirit, and what “revelations” comes from one’s own mind is a whole other issue).
My opinion is that Christians stray off the straight and narrow when they attempt to impose scriptural-based certainty in areas where it shouldn’t be used as authoritative. For example, the Bible is not the authoritative guide to understanding how the material universe works - we know what we know about the material universe through observation, experience and the practice of science.
Of course, we can see in writings throughout human history, recorded observations and explanations about the material world, and how humankind has interacted with, and worked within the constraints of the material world. Our knowledge of the material world improves over time, and gives us information closer to what physical reality is. So what makes a particular set of ancient writings authoritative about the material world, other than reductionist tendencies of the human mind?
Even very early Christian scholars recognized the importance of scripture in spiritual matters, but not so much in explaining the natural world. Probably the most well known is St. Augustine of Hippo, who wrote extensively on interpretation of scripture in On Christian Doctrine written in AD 397. Here is a compilation of excerpts from this work. More well known to those who study the intersection of faith and science is Augustine's The Literal Meaning of Genesis, written around AD 415. This oft-quoted passage is worth repeating here:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Tim 1:7]."
Oversimplifying the simplicity of scripture
Ultimately, what I see among a number of conservative and evangelical Christians is a tendency to oversimplify a view of scripture, to avoid the issues of uncertainty and not knowing things with certainty. It’s easier to claim absolute certainty with an infallible and inerrant view of scripture. But in doing so, one becomes compelled to apply scripture in all sorts of ways which are not helpful to what God has called His followers to do.
My question is - why can’t we just stick to the basics? God loves us, and we are to love others in kind, and work to show others there is truth in the message of scripture, and that truth points to Jesus. To me, this is the preferable simplicity of scripture.
Comments
Post a Comment