Andrew,

Thank you for your patient and careful response. With each engagment, you helpfully elucidate the issues at stake.

I am grateful for your concern that we not flatten the complex and diverse literary aspects of Scripture. Pointing to the humanness of the text serves good exegesis. Allegorization is distracting at best, misleading at worst. And exegetes need to take care not to postulate absolutes where a right interpretation of the text does not warrant such an absolute.

Therefore, we should take care to be sensitive to the particularities of genre. And we respect the textual, ephochal, and canonical horizons of any given passage, not smothering one at the expense of the other. This includes understanding Scripture as dramatic narrative, among other things. We should not, however, separate the authority of God’s word from the authority of the one who speaks.

At the same time, you present a number of critiques that feel a little bit like straw men and/or false dicotomies:

(1) “the danger with a high view of scripture is always that the record of God speaking and acting becomes more significant in the mind of the church than the fact of God speaking and acting.” Why make this dicotomy? Scripture agrees with your concern, but not your solution! That’s why the biblical authors repeatedly tells us to hear and obey, rather than to simply hear but not do, like Pharisees or hypocrites. It would seem strange for any of the biblical authors to then turn around and say, “Because I want you to hear and obey, let me encourage you not to view these words as bearing God’s authority.”

(2) “The presumption of divine authority tends to stop us reading honestly or with critical integrity.” Whether or not that’s a real tendency—who are you talking about?—it’s not a logical corrolary.

(3) “The danger is that the assumption of authority entails an implicit judgment about content - it protects certain readings and disqualifies others.” Yes! I should think that’s what the Bible intends. God speaks, and he wants his people to listen. I cannot think of a passage in Scripture that suggests otherwise. The way you have construed your argument sounds as if you mean to take away Scripture’s authority so that people can say it means whatever they want it to mean. Wouldn’t it be better to say that Scripture is authoritative, even if we disagree on its interpretation. Now, many people have abused their authority and their own interpretations. But that’s not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You see, I actually think that, if indeed God has given us an authoritative word, we can trust that submitting to it entirely will prove to stimulate our imaginations far beyond any free-wheel theologizing we can do on our own. Doesn’t the submission of Christ to the words of the Father suggest as much?

(4) “At the moment this is more likely to hinder than help the renewal of the theological mind.” I do think God intends for us to renew our minds, but why would you assume that undermining the authority of Scripture is how he intends for us to do it (see Rom 12). From a biblical standpoint, that’s a strange remedy for renewal. Think of Deuteronomy. Think of the prophets. Think of Christ’s upper room discourse in John. Think of the epistles. Throughout Scripture, we are called to renew our minds by learning to think Scripture—learning to think God’s thoughts after him. This is what transforms our minds from the worldly systems that are foolishness to God. He calls us to be conformed to his word, doesn’t he? Not to make artificial, academic distinctions between what he says and what humans write? Can you imagine how radical a people would be who were truly conformed to the word of God? The Israelites couldn’t, b/c they didn’t have the Spirit. But new covenent believers? Gradually? Stumblingly?

(5) “I am inclined to think that the modern evangelical church’s obsession with the question of the authority of scripture reflects the fact that it has lost interest in and confidence in the content of scripture.” Where, specifically, do you see this happening. I cannot imagine what this looks like. Surely, those who prize Scripture’s authority sometimes misunderstand or misconstrue the content of Scripture. But to the best of their abilities they are attempting to bow to it. But if you abandon it’s authority, why care about its content? In short, the two are inseparably linked. You can’t take them apart. Your boss sends you a letter; you care about the content because he’s your boss. Your wife sends you a letter; you care about its content because of who she is that speaks.

With each of these statements, it seems that you say more about humans (and the fact that they don’t make very reliable interpreters) than you say anything about Scripture itself. And I don’t think it’s sufficient to fall back on the claim, “I’m only saying these are ‘tendencies’ of a high view of Scripture.” Presumably, we could take each one of these five critiques an observe instances where people with a low view of Scripture have displayed the same tendencies. Don’t human beings in general—from C. Henry to R. Bultmann—typically privilege their own readings of the biblical text? Again, I don’t believe this says anything about the text itself.

It does say, as I think we agree, that we need a more careful hermenteutic. I know Wright, whom you’ve point to, attempts to do this, as have other writers. (Although, have you seen Carson’s review of Wright’s method?). I guess I would point to Michael Horton’s Covenant and Eschatalogy or the work of Kevin Vanhoozer (I haven’t read his most recent volume) as providing methods which avoid the problems you righly point out.

Ultimately, however, it looks to me like we do have significantly different views of what the Bible is. Is that your reading? You write, “What God speaks and what man writes (scriptures) are two rather different things, and I think it is unhelpful to confuse them.” Whether you are getting that from Barth, or Frei, or wherever, I would not say that. As soon as you make that distinction, I believe you give up any reason for privileging the Bible over any other book. I’m sure you’ve heard these argument before. I’m saying nothing terribly original. Yet why should I read the Bible and care a wit about it’s content if it’s not “God speaking,” albeit through a meaningful and strong conception of human instrumentality and personality? Yes, Scripture does say we can have a both/and here.

Is the Bible our community’s story? Sure, but I’m presently staking my livelihood and my eternity, as well as the livelihoods of my wife and daughter, on the fact that the story corresponds to reality “out there.” I’m staking all the time I spend with other people according to the various ministries God has given on the fact that Jesus, the God-man, really did get up from the grave. Are we not fools if he didn’t? The question of whether or not God actually and authoritatively said Jesus rose from the grave seems pretty meaningful to me.

Thoughts? (Forgive my length.)