For postmodern Christians, and for many evangelicals today who may not necessarily place themselves in the postmodern category, the idea that we must read the Bible with a predetemined commitment to the authority of the text has become acutely problematic.
Generally speaking, we locate the reason for taking the Bible with utmost seriousness in the text itself: the Bible is the Word of God and is, therefore, inherently authoritative or normative regardless of any difficulties we might have believing it. We could, however, approach the question from the other end, if only hypothetically. Let me suggest that what puts us under obligation to scripture is not intrinsic to the text but the church’s conviction that it is a people called by God to continue the agenda of Jesus. This conviction, of course, has not come from nowhere. It is dependent either directly or indirectly on certain texts that purport to narrate and interpret the story about Jesus. Nevertheless, we have the option in principle – as an exercise in re-envisioning – of forgetting what we know and revisiting the whole question of what determines who we are and how we should behave.
On the basis of this conviction and motivated by the Spirit of God the church is driven to understand the texts that explain its origins and establish the trajectory on which it finds itself. Scripture is important to us, therefore, not because it has some extraordinary status as the Word of God but because the church is impelled from within to discover its identity and purpose. What sustains the importance of scripture is not any hypothesis about its authority but the determination of the church to be what it is supposed to be. In the end, we choose to find ourselves in this text – not arbitrarily but because we have the Spirit of God.
This is similar to Tom Wright’s analogy of an unfinished Shakespearian play: the actors must look to the earlier acts in order to understand how the plot should unfold. The difference is that it somewhat shifts the emphasis from the function of the preceding acts in determining what should follow to the responsibility of the actors in understanding why they are on this particular stage. The difference may be a small one, but it perhaps better recognizes the sense of discontinuity that many believers now experience. We do not feel that we have been involved in acting out the preceding story – at least, not with any great conviction. We feel as though we have been shoved on to the stage in front of an impatient audience with little idea of what we are supposed to say or do. But we desperately want to know, we desperately want to get it right – and it is this which drives us to take the scriptures seriously and keep the drama moving towards its climax.
Conviction based on history
Andrew,
I like these comments and would take it another step. I think that the emerging church needs to look at what the church universal has held as normative through history. I was reminded today of a comment that a theologian, Edmund Clowney, once wrote. He suggested that whenever a Christian community struggles over the interpretation of a theological issue that the community should look to church history in order to understand how the issue has been understood. Over the past couple years I have been seeking to develop a framework by which we can come to an understanding of such theological issues by looking at historical theology. Some aspects of this framework has been articulated in the article “Five Guiding Principles for Determine Theological Orthodoxy in a Postmodern Context” which has undergone minor revision concerning the presuppositions of Scripture.
Many have commented on the merit of having such a priori assertions about Scripture due in part to the notion that there is no need to attribute to Scripture the authority it has intrinsically. While this point is well taken and might very well be the case, in order to outline any theological issues certain presuppositions are useful. Nevertheless, I thought it an appropriate exercise to go back in church history to understand how the post-apostolic church understood the doctrine of Scripture. Below is some of what I’ve discovered.
Regarding Scriptures authority: Tertullian (c. 116-230) noted that the Gospels and Old Testament were both revelation from God and equated the Gospels and Apostolic writings with the Law and Prophets (Against Praxaes XX; On Prescriptions XXXVI); a sentiment later articulated by Ignatius (early 100s; Ep. To Smyrnaeans 5:1). Ireneaus (115-200) viewed the Old and New Covenant as derived from the same source thus sharing the same authority (Against Heresies 5:1).
Regarding inspiration: Theophilus of Antioch wrote in defense of inspiration, “But men of God carrying in them a holy spirit and becoming prophets, being inspired and made wise by God, became God-taught, and holy and righteous” (To Autolycus IX). Regarding inspiration, Origen (185-254) believed that the Prophet became clearer in mind and filled with brighter light (Against Celsus VII, 3-4). John Chrysostom (344-407) wrote, “Yet the Holy Spirit indeed made so many wise provisions in order that they might be safely kept.” (Homilies on Hebrews, Homily VIII. 9).
authority of the text
This issue of “authority” in regard to the text is clearly an issue for many - the postings on this site are tribute to that. I’ve read many of the comments, however, and feel that much of what is written is, up to now, more about justifying an alternative view and deconstructing the “inspired by God” view (in it’s various understandings), than a helpful description of “the problem” itself.
I’m quite happy with the idea that “as an exercise in re-envisioning” we discover new ways of viewing the Scriptures, the message of Scripture, the teaching of Jesus, who Jesus was etc, however, that seems quite different from the deconstruction of the concepts of “infallibility,” “inspiration,” of Scripture and the attempts of some to insist they are practically anachronisms.
So, what I’m asking is, can you explain what is the “problem” that you refer to and are trying to solve?
Is it to find another route to faith that is NOT dependent on this traditionally “high” view of Scripture? Is it re-envisioning, as a part of the onward march of faith, which needs to be refreshed and represented as culture changes around it? Is it the belief that this traditionally high view of Scripture is not sustainable and must therefore give way to the long-held claims made by it’s opponents that it is nothing more than a collection of archaic human documents, no more inspired than Shakespeare or Wordsworth or the Koran? Is it simply that the “inspired” view does not answer the questions that ‘post-modernism’ and it’s adherents (knowing or unknowing) are asking (hence, the need for re-envisioning)?What is the nature of this “problem” you refer to, which has apparently presented itself in this post-modern context?
Is the authority of scripture problematic?
John, this is a rather limited response to your four questions. You could also have a look at the articles listed here, though they may be getting a bit out of date.
I’m not sure it is either necessary or desirable to make faith dependant on a high view of scripture. Faith is centred on my belief in the announcement that Jesus is Lord. By virtue of that act of trust I enter into (am baptized into) a community of those who have a similar belief, and together we become profoundly and passionately interested in the story that makes sense of that announcement. So rather than suppose that scripture generates and sustains faith I would argue that the shared faith of the community generates and sustains an interest in scripture. But of course, if that interest in scripture - as a matter of serious reading - gives rise to greater confidence in the coherence and reliability of the texts, then that in turn feeds back into the faith of the community.
There is probably something in this: our culture is wary of ‘authoritative texts’, therefore we endeavour to imagine ways in which the Bible can be significant for us without requiring us to suppose that it comes with a certificate of total truthfulness from God pasted inside the front cover. The phrase ‘the onward march of faith’, however, seems to bring into play an idea of progress that seems to me to be unhelpful - not least because postmodernism is probably more of a step back than a step forward.
Why jump from a ‘high view of Scripture’ to a ‘nothing more than’ view of Scripture? Would you deny the significance of Shakespeare by saying that he is no more ‘inspired’ than, say, Evelyn Waugh? My suggestion in the first post in this thread was that scripture is significant - highly significant - because it is the defining text of the historical people of God. It is important, valuable, etc., to the extent that we have an authentic calling and responsibility to fulfil God’s purposes in this world. One of the problems with the traditional emphasis on the intrinsic authority of scripture is that it sidelines the covenantal commitment of God to his people.
I don’t really see how we can recover a sense of the historicality of the biblical narrative without recovering at the same time a sense of the historicality (and therefore of the contingency and ‘imperfectness’ - to whatever degree) of the texts that contain that narrative. I suspect that we cannot reasonably claim that the Bible is a record of real history without at the same time allowing that these are real historical documents which derive their importance and authority precisely through being historical. I think the problem we face today is not demonstrating the texts are inspired but showing that they are real, which leads to the next point….
It would be interesting to look at the texts that Michael cites and consider what questions these ancient theologians were attempting to answer. All arguments are contextual, and to some extent the nature of the question that is asked determines the shape of the answer. I would argue that the doctrine of inspiration as we know it developed as a response to - or perhaps better a reaction against - ‘modern’ questions about whether the Bible is true or not. Postmodernism typically asks whether the Bible is real - at least, this is what I find myself continually searching for. What is the nature of the imaginative world that gave birth to these texts? What was the reality of the communities that produced them? There’s no point in providing modern answers to postmodern questions - but I also think that in listening to the postmodern question we will learn how to answer the modern one better.
authority of the text (continued)
Thanks for your thoughts, Andrew.
I thought your comments on baptism into a community etc. which in turn leads to a passionate interest in the story were interesting and helpful. In my own context, however, that has meant a baptism into a community whose passionate interest included a view of Scripture which really does not fit the charicatures most frequently represented in the articles / ost generally. I think perhaps that is why I am having to work hard to understand the nature of the struggle your are describing here.
I’ve read, though could hardly claim to have fully digested, the documents you point towards. I don’t find anything objectionable or disagreeable in reading through them, but neither do I find that I can walk away from them and personally relate to the (admirable) passionate struggle for authenticity contained within them. I think that’s probably because I come from a fundamentalist (though not rabidly so!) background, which, as you say, has an inner fortitude which is not essentially bad, though may be largely / often irrelevant to many other parts of society / culture. Personally, however, I have not found this to be an essentially defensive position, though yes, often an isolating one. Not unreasonably, the contention from within that ‘camp’ is that it is society that is moving ‘away,’ rather than vice-versa. For this reason, the sense of a need to re-envision and represent the message, authentically, is deeply understood. Again, personally, in this context the work of Stern, which I have previously discussed with you, regarding Jewish roots, and of Tom Wright, is meat and drink, (but in no sense hostile to an “inspired” view of Scripture, as far as I can tell).
I would also say that within the general thrust of the articles and other allied sources, such as “The Shaping of Things to Come” (Hirst) I find the representation of Evangelicalism to be an exaggerated image that I do not fully recognise (though equally I do not deny may exist). My own intercourse with Evangelicalism, Pentecostalism, Anglicanism, Non-Conformism, is that I am impressed with the sincerity of folk and their efforts (perhaps that’s my naivete), though generally not with the level of what I describe as open-heartedness to actually engaging in genuinely Christian mission. In that sense, I am sympathetic to the thrust of your odyssey, even while I don’t personally relate easily to it’s nuances. By contrast / incidentally, I read Tom Wrights’ article on the authority of Scripture and found that to be something I could relate to very clearly, as neither an abandonment nor an embrace of orthodoxy (as normally understood).
A couple of specific responses, to your comments:
Why do you argue this? What impact does an inspired view of scripture have upon covenant understanding? As far as I can tell, I hold to both!? (Perhaps we ought to clarify the extent of “intrinsic authority” we are referring to? How do you understand, for example, the “inspiration” referred to in 2 Timothy 3.16 (your caveat to my comment on Shakespeare seemed to sidestep the implication of specifically divine authority)?)
Secondly,
I agree absolutely with this sense of the rootedness in history of our faith and of the authority of Scripture. However, isn’t it possible that, in the end, an historical analysis will demonstrate that a view of “divine inspiration” is entirely appropriate, once understood aright (e.g. as Tom Wright sets out in above article)? Have I understood you correctly that this is a possibility as an outcome to the ost odyssey but not, in the present post-modern cultural climate, as a pre-supposition? Is this possibly one of the aspects of “reality” you say is at the core of the post-modern search?
B.t.w., in respect of “onward march” of faith, I meant only in a chronological sense, rather than in terms of an advance. I am intrigued, however, by your comment that post-modernism is a step back, but perhaps that would be off-theme to pursue here. Personally, I find myself close to admitting a failure to understand or relate to the evasive concept of post-modernism at this stage of things, (in spite, presumably, of it being all around me in the culture of the day). I think I may have to resign myself to being an fundamental (sic) anachronism at heart - at least for the time being. Having said that, I should add that I find your “conviction-based model of biblical authority” to be something I can comprehend and aspire to without any difficulty (perhaps there is hope for me after all…) — it’s just that I don’t come to it finding the doctrine of inspiration of scripture problematic - perhaps therefore that doesn’t need to form the precursive introduction to the idea?
regards…
Biblical authority
John, there is a lot that I want to agree with here. You are certainly right to warn against dismissing conventional fundamentalist / evangelical convictions about scripture; and no doubt I have often fallen into the trap of setting up straw evangelicals to knock down. I still think, however, that settled notions of what scripture is tend to give rise to complacency about what it is actually saying. One of the things that has made Tom Wright’s work so powerful is that he has allowed the New Testament texts to settle back into the flow of history so that they can be read in continuity with the Maccabean writings or Josephus. It’s harder to do this when Josephus is published as a Penguin Classic and the Bible is bound in calfskin and edged with gold leaf - if only metaphorically!
My point about Shakespeare and Evelyn Waugh (which was not well made) was that there are different ways of defining the authority or value of a text for a community. Even if we dispense with notions of predetermined authority and allow that the books of the Bible address us as historical documents, there are still distinctions to be made on the basis, say, of the content of the texts or of the character of the community that reads the texts. We can proclaim that these are divinely inspired texts until we are blue in the face, but what exactly is achieved by that? We are still bound to ask whether the story that is told lives up to these extraordinary hermeneutical claims; and I think that practically speaking it is the intrinsic character of the church that will decide whether the texts are worth accepting as authoritative or not. This seems to me to be the reality of the matter. If we then choose to grant an exceptional hermeneutical status to the texts (in order, for example, to safeguard the doctrinal integrity of the church), we risk distancing ourselves from their intrinsic historical reality - at which point the problem of epistemological integrity arises. I think we have to find truth and inspiration in the unenhanced, historical reality of our ‘sacred writings’. If it’s not there, is it really anywhere? I don’t think we can afford to take short-cuts at the moment.
I do not see this as in any way diminishing or precluding the role of the Spirit of God in inspiration - I do not wish to sidestep the implication of divine authority. But it makes a difference to see that authority mediated through a complex historical-eschatological narrative rather than through more prescriptive or informational models. Perhaps what we are searching for is simply a model of biblical authority that is consistent with the new ways in which we are learning to read the story about Jesus. What reasons do we have for taking this particular narrative seriously? My suggestion is that we need to start not from a doctrine of divine inspiration or biblical authority but from a driving sense of having been made a people for his own possession and for his purpose and needing to understand what that means. And I think you’re right - as we undertake this odyssey, we will arrive at new convictions about scripture, perhaps convictions that hardly need to be formulated dogmatically because the story itself has become so compelling.
An emerging model of biblical authority...
I find that very helpful, Andrew. You have answered some of my deepest specific concerns regarding the nature of this compelling ‘journey into emerging church theology’ which you have introduced me to through ost.
There’s no doubt that Wright’s reading of the gospel accounts is extraordinary in representing Jesus as a Jewish prophet (I read your precis of ‘Jesus and the Victory of God’ / Praxis of a Jewish prophet today and this considerably increased my aprehension of this view), thereby forcing a reading of his teaching that provides a quite different insight to the evangelical norm. And I’m all for that. A demythologysing of scripture so to speak, in order to let it speak more powerfully to us, in the end.
There are, of course, certain aspects of the Hebrew scriptures, notably the so-called Wisdom Literature, which inevitably evoke a timeless quality to them. And there are elements of the new covenant scripture which evoke that same sense (for example, 1 Corinthians 13 is a classical form of Hebrew poetry, so I understand). I wouldn’t want to lose that rendering, and I don’t think it’s neccessary. Both senses of inspiration, can I believe, co-exist. The following rabbinical principles of interpretation from Judaism (courtesy of Stern) show us a way that this is possible, without losing authenticity:
The latter three are more obviously open to abuse and perhaps this is something of the struggle that we are in reaction to today, legitimately so. However, I appreciate the nuances of your answer are helpful to me in ensuring we do not dispatch the baby in our haste to empty the bath.
I was interested that you posited the idea of different texts having different level of authority (it’s obvious in practise, I know, but admitting it, well it’s part of that demythologysing process…) Stern points this out too: within Hebrew tradition different books are understood to have a different level of authority from the books of Moses downwards. Stuart Murray informs me that Anabaptists have typically looked first at the teachings of Jesus, then NT, then OT, to discern matters of teaching, which I found quite helpful and seems similar, though they may not describe this as relative authority, it seems a practical reality.
Stern’s analysis of new covenant scripture has two further insights that you may find interesting in this context. Firstly, he believes that the new covenant has “been given as torah” on the basis of Hebrews 8.6b, thereby providing a unity to scripture that weds Gentiles brought into the new covenant to the framework of the Hebrew torah and history. Secondly, that it thereby offers us a “torah of the Messiah,” which is to say, a torah as set forth by the Messiah.
I know this may seem to encourage the “timeless” sense of Jesus teaching, but the concept of an “eternal torah” is a very typically Jewish concept. Howeve, I do wonder if it cannot still be placed alongside the historical reading, one enriching the other, the p’shat and the midrash, remez etc working together. That’s how it presently is for me personally, at least.
Against Canon
The contributors to this board have obviously thought a lot about this topic – thoughts that I plan to reread with more care. But I seem to learn only by being corrected, so I offer on the sacrificial altar of your considered and considerable criticism a few thoughts that have been troubling me the last couple of years.
When I studied the principles under which prophecy and more generally revelation operate in scripture, I discerned the following battery of tests:
1. Test of Time: are the verifiable particulars borne out?
2. Test of Character: I think I can apply Andrew’s words here: “it is the intrinsic character of the church that will decide whether the texts are worth accepting…” Does a prophet’s revelation show its power from the very start?
3. Test of the Spirit: Taken from 1 John and Deuteronomy: does the spirit that mediated the revelation serve the LORD?
4. Test of the Prophets: Is the revelation consistent with other reliable sources, including but not limited to: previously recorded, tested, and accepted revelation; others in the community that hear God consistently; and tested and accepted tradition? With particular regard to scripture, I asked a question that I have been struggling with ever since:
“<Testing against scripture> is not a question of whether the Bible is superior to the word of God revealed in other ways. If a contemporary prophecy passes all scriptural tests and agrees wholly with scripture, in what sense can it be inferior, discounted, or ignored? Shouldn’t we grant the same reverence to God’s word whenever it is affirmed?”
All of these tests have weaknesses, and often the full meaning of a revelation cannot be conclusively appreciated for some time.
The ramifications of adopting these principles for the purpose of determining the authority of particular revelations are huge. They would mean that our authority wouldn’t rest on the “specialness” of particular texts or people, but on God himself. In other words, unlike practically any other religion, the texts need no special treatment because the Author is still very much alive. To borrow and twist Jesus’ words a bit, “Only God is Holy.” In this sense, the Reformation was a job half done, stripping sacredness from saints but not from texts.
It is especially surprising to me that, whatever their view as to the sacredness of the texts, our traditional communities in fact depended on these tests, notably in the repeated reconstructions of “sacred” canon. I imagine I see them even in the formation of the texts, when Paul writes “pistos o logos” about some unattributed quote. What is truly canonical, it seems, is the “complex historical-eschatological narrative” of our community together with the Spirit. After almost two thousand years, isn’t it time that we ‘fessed up to God’s better way?
The ramifications of adopting
That’s an interesting set of observations. I’m not sure I agree with the last conclusion…
Yet there’s a certain sense of idolatry in the Church today, worshiping the scriptures instead of worshiping their ultimate Author. Yet, without the scriptures, we are bereft of historical continuity, for we have not very much clue about those who have gone before us. In a sense, we have abandoned the idea of chronicling the journey of the Church the way Israel’s travails were chronicled. In that abandonment there is freedom, but there is loss, also, for we do not all know what has gone before. We don’t know what has been tried and failed, or what has been tried and true, for all that we have is the scriptures. (well, we have “Church History,” written by the victors… and some of it highly suspect)
I think this may be why the church latches on to the Bible and treats it as Holy Writ, the Command of God.
Do not get me wrong - I read the Bible regularly. But I have questions, doubts, problems with it. I question where the texts came from, why the Greek passages were chosen the way they were by the particular translators, which passages should truly be present, and which ones are consistent with the teaching of the Holy Spirit who dwells within me.
Roger
Believing in God, Reading the Bible, Seeking the truth.
When Doubt is Canonical
Do not get me wrong - I read the Bible regularly. But I have questions, doubts, problems with it. I question where the texts came from, why the Greek passages were chosen the way they were by the particular translators, which passages should truly be present, and which ones are consistent with the teaching of the Holy Spirit who dwells within me.
But that’s it! That’s precisely it! That’s what makes Scripture authoritative but not, strictly speaking, canonical. Canon ultimately rests with the only One who is holy. Its authority devolves to those in whom the Holy One dwells. From there it gives authority to what they witness and test.
Unfortunately, Paul is not alive so that we can ask him, “Excuse me, apostle, sir, when you wrote ‘Test everything,’ did you mean everything?”
Let me risk my fingers and put words in a dead man’s mouth: “Yup, I sure did.”
Now why is Paul so bold where the Church has been fearful for over 1600 years? Isn’t it the height of foolishness to subject every record of divine revelation to the testing of every last adherent? But Paul could do so confidently because canon is not in scripture but in Spirit. As I said, the Author is still alive and kicking (and kicking hard! Somebody let Him out!). Now if you ask the Spirit, will it disown its own creation? So authority devolves to scripture, but canon the chary thinker will leave behind with God.
But what happened when the Church invited a different gatekeeper to guard the authority of scripture (and “Saint” and Pope for that matter), when it tried to safeguard it by claiming it sacred by its own fiat and therefore beyond testing by the rank and file? Your own witness is that the substitute abused its charge, and now we have to pick through centuries of wreckage to find what we can of “what is good” to hold fast to.
Actually, like you I can’t believe God would have abandoned us like that. For our own faith’s sake, someone ought to search the historic eddies (I’d start with “charismatics” and mystics) to see if my understanding of canon has antecedent. Dissertation topic, anyone?
Just as I am not proposing abandoning scripture, I am not proposing abandoning history. If anything, the implications of testing drive us to reexamine the contents of the pre-Reformation bathwater. “Test everything” means to examine not only revelation that men have placed in heaven, but revelation that they have trod underfoot. Testing opens the door to examining what in rwfranz’s bboard posts is authoritative. In other words, if scripture allows me to test in the Spirit the merits of scripture itself, it also liberates me to find merit in the constellation of fellow prophets about me, present as well as past. If scripture is not sacred, but just profitable and reliable, what else that is not sacred is profitable and reliable? I vote for some of Sirach, Augustine, Luther, Lewis, and yes, rwfranz. Suddenly, our treasury has greatly expanded from new and old to newer still (but all, interestingly enough, from “of old”)! This is the huge ramification I spotted – so huge that I need help in wrestling with it. Thank you for jumping in the ring with me!
PaiX,—M
Against or upon canon?
I like the idea, as motomaturu puts it, that we are looking for “God’s better way,” in all of this. For me, that means not being against canon but looking at ways of getting God’s best from the canon, building upon its foundational revelation of God, alongside every other recognisable revelation that God gives, including creation, prophecy, words of knowledge, wisdom, etc. (whatever they look like…) with a theology that has room for both the practical application and mystery.
Thus, the idea of “stripping sacredness from texts” seems the wrong way around. Aren’t we wanting to imbue more of life with sacredness? Isn’t that a part of what it means to be the people of God? Showing the sacred ways in which God has created and then interacted with his creation? To isolate the secular (those areas of life which, it has been assumed are ‘no go areas’ for God), more and more? Isn’t that what your suggested “battery of tests” is aiming at?
The way I’m reading your posting, motomaturu, is that, on the one hand, you speak about the “tests” which might be applied to all the words which God has spoken, is speaking and you suggest that these tests have also been employed in constructing the canon; you also seem to be excitedly saying that the authority of God would be recognised in these other “words” from God if they pass these tests (“huge ramifications”), yet on the other hand, you apparently want to deny the same sense of authority to canonical scripture which, in the main, has been tested again and again, across a wide range of cultures, over thousands of years and, by and large, found not to be particularly lacking. Am I missing / misunderstanding something in what you are saying?
Also, you say,
I like this idea. This seems to me to be building up from the foundation of scripture, “upon canon,” an edfice of living stones upon the Ephesians 2.20 “foundation of the apostles and prophets,” who left us their revelation of God in what we now call scripture; an edifice which we are still building.
In that sense, I think we can recognise words which God has spoken to communities and leaders of those communities over the centuries, which we might suggest are every bit as inspired. The question would then be: are they universally applicable? Of course, I can immediately sense the post-modern repost: is any or all of scripture universally applicable? Andrew, I think, is constantly reminding us that when we recognise the narrative of scripture, it is as relevant as we make it, because we allow it to speak for itself.
I think perhaps this issue then is, if we go on to “build upon canon,” with our lives, in response to the narrative and other revelations of God, we need to be prepared for the hard work of explaining how we arrived at the direction we are taking, for those who come into our now-experience, without the benefit of our past-experience. That’s hard work, tempting to take short cuts and manipulate others in. That’s the very methodology much of “churchianity” has fallen into and it won’t do, going forward. The Holy Spirit is showing it up for what it is and asking us to step aside from it. Instead we need to allow the authenticity of our experience to be shown for what it is. If it speaks to others, they will respond. If not, we journey on…