READINGS FOR THIS WEEK, January 17 – January 23
24 Exodus 24-27
25 Exodus 28-30
26 Exodus 31-34
27 Exodus 35-37
28 Exodus 38-40
39 Leviticus 1-4
30 Leviticus 5-7
OK, I’m realizing that my thoughts relative to inspiration, canon, our relationship with the text, et al., aren’t organized enough for me to lay these posts out in any logical order. So I’ll just keep laying out thoughts and getting reactions. Thanks to all who commented yesterday.
Some thoughts on the compilation of the text:
Maybe those are enough general thoughts for today. Help me sharpen my thinking on these items!
In my last post, I talked about valuing the whole Bible. That’s not about putting equal weight on every statement in Scripture; it is about seeing every statement in Scripture as being an essential part of the whole.
Part of our problem with properly respecting Scripture is the difficulty we have in knowing what to do with the biblical writers. That is, there was a time when many saw the biblical writers as irrelevant, merely stenographers who faithfully recorded every word the Holy Spirit whispered in their ears. Later, the biblical writers came to be seen as fallible humans, who crafted the biblical texts to fit their agendas.
Then there’s the whole question of canon. Who decided what went into the Bible and what didn’t? Was it God? Believers inspired and directed by God? Or humans who capriciously chose texts according to their own outlooks and purposes?
To a lesser degree, we face the questions of preservation and translation. How faithful is the text we’ve received? And how well are we able to read that text in another language? How much gets lost in translation? How much has been unintentionally or intentionally distorted by translators?
Lots of questions. I’ll try and lay out where I see myself in the posts that follow, though that can be a moving target at times. I’d love for you to weigh in with your own observations on these and other questions about how we deal with the Bible.
There was a time in our brotherhood when we elevated the book of Acts to a special status. Acts showed us how people became Christians in the first century. Acts revealed much about the structure and organization of the early church.
Paul’s writings were also of highest importance, partly because Paul figures so prominently in Acts. There was an awareness that Paul wrote to address issues in the church and teach basic doctrines essential to the faith. Out of these writings, Romans was valued for its teaching about salvation, while the pastorals found a special place because of their insights on church governance.
One tier down were the other epistles. They were seen as important, but not quite on the same level as what Paul wrote.
The gospels were relegated to the role of historical curiosity, speaking of times before the cross. Dispensationalism was strong, and the gospels didn’t belong to the current dispensation.
Last and least was the Old Testament. Not only seen as addressing things prior to the Christian age, the Old Testament was taught to have been “nailed to the cross”; anyone trying to teach Old Testament principles was considered to be trying to live under the old law instead of the law of Christ.
Times are changing. The Old Testament seems to be revered and despised at the same time. Old Testament teachings about justice have found a renewed place in Church of Christ canon, while stories of violence are considered to be the ignorant writings of underdeveloped peoples. Any woman mentioned in any positive light is held up as an example of why women should be given prominent roles today; any stories not exalting women are examples of the patriarchy that created the violent stories.
Where the gospels were once seen as somewhat irrelevant because they addressed a time that isn’t ours, the epistles have now slipped to that status. Much of the New Testament is seen as still being controlled by the underdeveloped patriarchy; or, to be more precise, many feel that the epistles couldn’t say all that they would have said because those advanced teachings wouldn’t have been received by the status quo. (Fortunately we’re more enlightened now)
And the gospels reign supreme. “I value Jesus over Paul.” Most would ignore the occasional nature of the gospels, except to say that there were things even Jesus couldn’t do because the people of that time wouldn’t accept them.
If my snark doesn’t show it, I don’t identify with the prior outlook nor the current one. I take the whole Bible as the Word of God, inspired by God, and useful for Christians. I believe we need to study genres and context and textual variants and a host of other things, but none of that removes the divine nature of the Bible, in my eyes.
There’s lots more to be said. I’ll pause for now, hoping to have some discussion.
Through the years, Christians have debated what authorities should be followed when it comes to religion. The Catholic church, among others, teaches that the traditions of the church hold equal weight with the Bible when deciding matters of faith. Most Protestant churches have insisted that the Bible alone is sufficient authority.
Many today are advocating a new source of authority, though few are open about it. This authority is experience, be it personal experience or observed experiences. Luke Timothy Johnson, an accomplished New Testament scholar who is a member of the Catholic church, expressed this new outlook on authority in a 2007 article published in Commonweal magazine. Let me quote an important passage:
I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to…
Johnson is more open than most when choosing experience over the biblical revelation. But his position is a common one, particularly when discussing two main issues: homosexuality and gender roles in the church. It boils down to this: if you can show that people are hurt, demeaned, frustrated by a certain doctrine, then that doctrine has to be changed in light of the experience of these people. It’s not a matter of going back and restudying something; it’s about elevating human experience over the written Word.
I don’t buy it. I’m not ready to give up on the Bible as a sufficient authority in matters of faith. Yes, we need to wrestle with how to apply today instructions that were given two thousand years ago. But let us not be found guilty of the chronological snobbery that leads us to believe that we in the twenty-first century understand God better than fellow Christians who lived centuries before.
Let us hear the voice of the hurting. But let’s offer them more than a sympathetic ear. Let’s offer them the wisdom of God’s Word speaking time-tested truths.
Please note, none of this is about unclear biblical teachings or questionable interpretations. Johnson is talking about looking biblical teachings square in the eye and telling them they are antiquated.
Hear another quote from Johnson:
I suggest, therefore, that the New Testament provides impressive support for our reliance on the experience of God in human lives—not in its commands, but in its narratives and in the very process by which it came into existence. In what way are we to take seriously the authority of Scripture? What I find most important of all is not the authority found in specific commands, which are fallible, conflicting, and often culturally conditioned, but rather the way Scripture creates the mind of Christ in its readers, authorizing them to reinterpret written texts in light of God’s Holy Spirit active in human lives.
Again, I don’t buy it. Let us be shaped by both narrative and command, led to live lives that stand in stark contrast to culture rather than following its every mutation. Ask the hard questions, do the deep study, but don’t give up on God’s Word. All of it. Let every jot and tittle shape our experiences and not vice versa. Let the Bible change how we live rather than daily life changing the Bible itself.
Sola scriptura. Let’s not be too quick to give up on that standard.