More Than the Bible
The evangelical Cambellite tradition from which I came emphasized the Bible more than anything else as the definitive answer to all questions. This type of thinking goes back a long time, at least back to the Reformation’s famous idea of sola scriptura (that the Bible is authoritative and clearly understandable). Although I rarely publicly criticize such a core principle of my heritage as this, I believe that sola scriptura and everything it has become is deeply flawed and extremely dangerous.
The absolute authority of the Bible must be questioned by any educated thinker. The Bible is an anthology written and compiled over hundreds of years by dozens of authors and editors. It has been further transmitted and translated by thousands of monks and scholars. Even if God directly dictated the original text of what we now hold as cannonized scripture, his dictation would look significantly different from today’s Bibles. Of course, that did not occur. People wrote, edited, compiled, transmitted, and translated the Bible into what we have today.
Furthermore, the Biblical authors were bound by their own cultures and times. Cultural and moral relativism has been discussed on this blog extensively already, but I need to emphasize that these concepts directly affect the authority modern readers should grant to the Biblical text as the sole answer to contemporary moral questions.
The Bible is also not inherently and objectively understandable. Over the centuries and across the countries, different readers have arrived at strikingly different conclusions after reading identical passages from the Bible. This occurs at the highest levels between the most educated theologians of different Christian sects and it is even worse at the level of the lay person who often resorts to proof-texting and eisegesis.
Although they might appear to be at first, the above observations are not criticisms of the Bible itself. I want to understand the Bible for what it is and then get as much truth as possible from it, but I cannot make the Bible into something it is not. Understanding the Bible for what it brings to the table is the necessary first step in applying it to anything. The above are criticisms and cautions for those who lean too heavily on the doctrine of sola scriptura and who almost go so far as to worship the Bible itself, ignoring its limitations.
If the Bible itself cannot be the ultimate authority on every moral question, then what other sources are available? There are literally millions of other sources for moral advice, many of which add something useful to any modern discussion. Philosophers, writers, poets, other religions, theologians, friends, and scholars can sometimes help illuminate the great moral issues of our day in better ways than the Bible alone can. The Bible helps point Christians to a great deal of truth and has a lot of good advice for morality, but it does not answer every question and it may have provided answers that can be seen as tailored for a specific time instead of universal. We should use everything that is useful for addressing important moral questions and leave the primitive clinging to one single text to answer all questions. Christians who place their faith in the Bible instead of in God are making a very unwise trade.
Have you ever thought about catholicism? The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ in 33 A.D. The Bible was put together by the Catholic Church in 397 A.D. There was a Church before the Bible..
http://www.johnpreiss.wordpress.com
johnpreiss
24 Jun 08 at 9:15 pm
Don’t get me wrong–I’m all for Catholicism; but are you seriously saying that Jesus said, “Hey you! You should be the pope and pick some friends to be bishops and have similar cool titles. O, and one more thing–when you decide to compile my story, don’t mention that I told you to do this,”?
Jesus did not start the Catholic Church in 33 c.e., he set up His church.
And David, I don’t know what to say about your post. It is, as always, challenging and very well written. Please do keep up the great work.
Ian
25 Jun 08 at 11:59 pm
Well written, but unconvincing. The Bible is the fundamental basis for the Christian faith and a belief system that purports to determine right and wrong and the saved from the condemned.
Everything is all so relative and conditional. For a religion to state it knows absolute truth is a bit absurd. Furthermore, to state that it holds the word of “God” (whoever that may be) is as equally perplexing as a fundamental premise.
It’s ok to hold on the the vestige of your childhood and upbringing, David; it is only natural. I know you’re trying to reconcile rationality, philosophy, and literature with religion. The only problem is, you can’t, really — it sort of all become very convoluted, if it isn’t already.
S.C. Denney
26 Jun 08 at 12:36 am
What are you unconvinced about, SC? I would have thought you would agree that the Bible is not enough by itself to answer all questions and determine all truth…
I also doubt that you would argue that the Bible doesn’t contain anything useful or anything that helps point toward truth and deeper understanding. Along with a lot of other sources, and filtered through the intellect and reasoning of critical people, of course the Bible can add something to the discussion.
As for the religion stating “that it knows absolute truth” - that seems to be what religions do. Maybe they do that a bit too much without examining the foundation for their absolute truth assertions? But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t truth in religion.
David M. Manes
26 Jun 08 at 8:43 am
I haven’t read the other comments but I just wanted to say a quick “amen” to the post. Right on! I’ll link to this post from my blog, http://liturgical.wordpress.com .
Also, I make a somewhat related point here:
http://www.liturgicalcredo.com/ALaymansDefenseofLiturgy.html
cheers,
Colin
LiturgicalCredo.com
Colin Foote Burch
26 Jun 08 at 11:48 am
[...] Comments David Manes over at PoliticalCartel.com makes some interesting points about the Bible in this post. Manes’ comments fit with some things I’ve been thinking through about systematizing [...]
The Bible Today « LiturgicalCredo.com’s Blog
26 Jun 08 at 11:57 am
I just found your site through the WordPress front page. Great Site!
Although you do portray a bit of a caricature, I think you’re on the right track in critiquing a fundamental understanding of the bible; there is a more subtle way at looking at the authority of scripture. You write “the Bible itself cannot be the ultimate authority on every moral question.” This is, I think, misrepresenting what the bible is intending to communicate.
The bible invites its readers into a story—a story about the world, identifying who we are, where we are, what is wrong, what is the solution, and what time it is. In other words, when we read the pages of scripture, we come into the narrative world—the metanarrative of God’s story for his creation. God intends his people to embody this story and to live it out, to improvise in today’s world.
NT Wright is helpful here. He describes the “authority” of the bible as similar to the “authority” that the first four acts of play has for those acting out the fifth act. For example, NT Wright explains, if a number of actors were assigned to perform the fifth act of a Shakespearean play– with the 5th act, however, missing from the pages of the script, then the performers would wrap their minds around Acts 1 through 4, learning the storied world of its characters in order to improvise in accord with the controlling narrative of the previous 4 acts.
NT Wright at length: “This model could and perhaps should be adapted further; it offers in fact quite a range of possibilities. Among the detailed moves available within this model, which I shall explore and pursue elsewhere, is the possibility of seeing the five acts as follows: (1) Creation; (2) Fall; (3) Israel; (4) Jesus. The New Testament would then form the first scene in the fifth act, giving hints as well (Rom 8; 1 Car 15; parts of the Apocalypse) of how the play is supposed to end. The church would then live under the ‘authority’ of the extant story, being required to offer something between an improvisation and an actual performance of the final act.” (How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm )
I infer that this is what George Lindbeck had in mind when he wrote, “To become a Christian involves learning the story of Israel and of Jesus well enough to interpret and experience oneself and one’s world in its terms” (The Nature of Doctrine, 34). This is precisely what the scriptures do for us, they locate us in the stories that shape our praxis, the narratives that control our lives.
Joshua Schow
26 Jun 08 at 5:27 pm
Joshua, I’m glad you stopped by.
I really like the act 5 analogy, and I agree with a lot of what you just said. I don’t know if the Bible intends to represent itself as the sole answer (I doubt it), but my criticism is more for the hardliners who interpret it as such. It may seem like a caricature, but I have met literally hundreds of people who are even more extreme in their dogmatic view of Biblical authority than I have even hinted at.
I may have to check into this NT Wright.
David M. Manes
26 Jun 08 at 6:53 pm
You really should check into NT Wright. His book “Simply Christian” is very enlightening. In your criticism of evangelical Campbellite tradition doctrine, I think you’re throwing the baby out with the bath water. First, I would question your assertion that sola scriptura means that the Bible is “authoritative and clearly understandable,” which is misleading, it really means thats the the Bible as God’s written word is self-authenticating, clear to the rational reader, its own interpreter, and the final authority of Christian doctrine. This idea never claims that the Bible is the sole authority on morality, but Christian doctrine. In contrast to the Protestant tradition, Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox faiths teach that the Scriptures are important but not an exclusive part of the Sacred Tradition from which the Churches form their doctrines. These Christian faith traditions also believe that the Church has authority over the Scriptures because it actively selected which books were to be in the biblical canon, by contrast Protestants believe the Church passively recognized and received the books that were already widely considered canonical. Secondly, I think you are critical as to how the Bible is interpreted by many in the CoC and Harding Bible professors, usually literally, but you’re attacking the study of the Bible instead. “Eisegesis” which I think you meant exegesis means an extensive and critical interpretation of an authoritative text, and I don’t think it’s accurate to claim that a layperson critically studying a text is “resorting” to something, quite the opposite. It calls for research into the historical, cultural, and literary meanings of scripture through the study of writings of Biblical author contemporaries like Josephus, contemporary commentators, other Christian texts, etc. I don’t think sola scriptura means that other literature outside the Bible has nothing to teach us about morality or faith. Have you ever taken a class with Dr. Fortner? If not, you should. His class on Jeremiah was awesome. If you can’t take a class with him before you graduate, at least try to set up a meeting and talk to him. I think he would be very receptive.
Karen L
16 Aug 08 at 1:13 pm
I know no one cares, but I reread your post again, and I guess you WERE talking about eisegesis. So, I retract my claim that you were critical of study, but I thought you were, since you don’t mention the importance of analytical study of the Scriptures in your arguments. You only claim that the Bible is not inherently understandable.
Karen L
16 Aug 08 at 10:20 pm
I care
someone who cares
17 Aug 08 at 12:16 am