At the Emergent Tulsa Cohort last week, I passed out a handout adapted from a post Scot McKnight made several months ago about the way we view the Bible. Our assumptions about what the Bible is and how it works will have a huge impact on the way we read it. That’s sort of what we talked about at the meeting. Here’s what was on the handout.
Your View of Scripture?
Adapted from Scot McKnight
Sacramental: the Scripture leads us to the Beyond as we read it; heavily shaped by community; not always true. (Marcus Borg) Clarification: “true” in this statement refers to historical accuracy.
Inerrant/Infallible: the Bible is never wrong about anything (science, too); always true.
True: you simply confess the Bible to be true and don?t care to say any more than that.
True Christian story, still ongoing: you see Scripture as Story, and it is God?s true Story, and the Scripture prompts the re-use of that Story in our world today in various ways. (N. T. Wright)
True in matters of faith and practice: the Bible is true on these issues, but can be wrong about science or history or other matters.
Infallible, with Tradition: Scripture is infallible; God?s Word, but it is in need of authorized interpretation and the Church?s Tradition is the work of God.
Historical origins: you see the Bible to be the historical foundation of the Church; it is simply historical; not inspired in the traditional sense that it lifts it out of the norm of writing; Scripture is as human as anything we experience, even if God uses it to lead the Church today.
So what is your view of Scripture? You show me yours and I’ll show you mine.
Telling Stories, Asking Questions, Learning Lessons
I hope this isn’t too postmodern a question, but can you define what you mean by true?
I cant pin it to a single one of those descriptions. Parts of each fit for me. I look at it as History. I look at the WORD of God. I look at it as truth. But, I also see where some of it is not meant to be taken Literally (cut out your eye!)
So yeah, its for sure the instruction book for our lives. But if we focus to much on EVERY little detail and if certain things happened a certain way(im bad at examples) then we will miss the bigger picture…
Yeah.. so that almost made sense…
“instruction book” – that makes me a little nervous. I don’t really like that analogy. I think it’s much deeper, richer and dynamic than that.
I get caught up in what the “word of God” is. So many of us use the phrase to mean “the Bible” but all the words in the Bible are not God’s words. Many are simply the words of men/women, for example in Genesis, Judah says to one he thinks is a prostitute, “Come now, let me sleep with you.” Those aren’t God’s words! Satan has a few speaking lines in Job: are those God’s words? This view of the Bible being God’s word is much more complex than we allow for.
There I am right in the middle… The one that says True Christian story, still ongoing (though it’s almost a tie with Sacramental). When I read them all, that’s the best fit for me – though I can accept and reject parts of all, and I’ve been a better fit in some others at different points of my life.
Moving away from my legalistic and overly simplistic (read: True) roots of discerning the word has put me in a sort of limbo. I want to be grounded enough to not go off the deep end – the polar opposite of what I used to cling to. But this is a comfortable limbo… one that forces me to depend on Jesus Christ much more than I ever used to.
Thanks for sharing some about what your cohort shared. Inquiring minds want to know!
If I had to pick just one it would be True Christian Story, Still Ongoing, but I’m drawn to inerrancy. This is an interesting discussion in light of the “Lost Gospel of Judas” (see nationalgeographic.com)
Todd–good question. I find myself making a distinction between “true” as in historically accurate and “true” as in authentic to the human experience.
For example, when I do storytelling events I usually use a line that I grabbed from someone else somewhere along the way, “All the stories I tell are true and some of them actually happened.”
Given the options you listed I find myself wanting to combine the two choice:
True Christian story, still ongoing: you see Scripture as Story, and it is God?s true Story, and the Scripture prompts the re-use of that Story in our world today in various ways. (N. T. Wright)
True in matters of faith and practice: the Bible is true on these issues, but can be wrong about science or history or other matters.
I don’t think there is not enough scientific thought (process) nor specific and accurate accounts of world history mentioned to use the Bible to argue very many science and history points. “God created” has never been sufficient enough for me to rule out theories of evolution (not man from monkey theories, but the practical and ongoing applications).
It will be interesting to see how the CofC will handle the book of Judah (http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/channel/gospelofjudas/). Some barely acknowledge the knowledge available to us in the Dead Sea scripts.
I grew up in an Inerrant/Infallible/True environment and was damaged by it.
As a public school teacher who has left behind the Inerrant/Infallible/True mindset I am an advocate for intelligent design (http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/), yet some in our tribe would have problem accepting me, or any paid minister, for promoting such since it counters some of the vague verses in Genesis.
Anyway, place me on the side of TRUE Christina story.
I like the Sacramental and True Christian Story. I believe that God still speaks (I wish the United Church of Christ hadn’t gotten hold of that tagline before us!) and I love the idea of the scriptures being “God-breathed.” That is, in the same way God breathed life into Adam, He breathes life into the scriptures, making them alive and active.
You know Chritina, she’s Jesus’ sister.
True Christian story, still ongoing. That seems the closest to my view that every Scripture has value for every person. What’s true (and what I’d guess the Holy Spirit has protected in every translation) is the loving relationship between God and his creation, and within the creation.
I see scripture as the oral history of the Jewish nation which lead to salvation for all people through the life, ministry, and death of Jesus. I don’t see scripture as a list of do’s and dont’s but as a way of having relationship with God and learning to recognize his Spirit in our lives. Scripture helps us live beyond ourselves so that we can become the vessels of God. It also helps us know Satan and how he works to enslave people to evil. I guess all of the above descriptions can apply in one way or another. The “mystery” remains, God loved us and gave his son as atonement for sin.
I suppose a combo of Sacramental and Historical Origins with True Story thrown in too. Marcus Borg and Brian McLaren have been big helps to me in recent years. I see intelligent Intelligent Design and Evolution as compatible or as the same thing. I don’t have confidence in the kind of ID that requires a series of magic tricks in order to fill in gaps. God got it right the first time.
This is truly sad. While not a blanket statement, the posts here are just examples of the next stage of the “slippery slope” that people like me have been warning others about for years. When we said, “Watch what’s next; they’ll be attacking scripture.”, people laughed. Nobody should be laughing now.
The Bible is the inerrant/ infallible, true Word of God. To claim that it is anything else makes the Bible not true. I guess “once and for all delivered to the saints” just doesn’t cut it in our modern world? I guess Revelation was nothing more than a movie trick, similar to the Lord of the Rings (“Gotcha! that’s not the end either…”).
Note some of the comments above:
“I don?t think there is not enough scientific thought (process) nor specific and accurate accounts of world history mentioned to use the Bible to argue very many science and history points. “God created” has never been sufficient enough for me to rule out theories of evolution ”
The Bible wasn’t written as a guidebook for you to explain to yourself the exact nature of the process of God’s creation. Saying that it isn’t literal because you can’t explain it to yourself is ludicrous. Who are you to say that God can’t just “create” because you can’t imagine it?
And another:
“Marcus Borg and Brian McLaren have been big helps to me in recent years. I see intelligent Intelligent Design and Evolution as compatible or as the same thing.”
If death came into the world because of the sin of one man, then how can evolution have occurred prior to his arrival? For evolution to occur, you have to have millions of years of death. Evolution only has one tool: DEATH. Even more than that, do you think God, the creator of all life, the sustainer of all life, and the light of all life, would choose DEATH as his means of creation??? How can a just and holy God choose something so cruel to express his glory?
I know that I will be laughed at and scorned for these remarks, because they are our grandparents views, but consider my rationale: If one cannot believe the Genesis creation account as literal, then one cannot believe the gospel accounts of Jesus as literal. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Satan is so deceptive: he looks for the part of scripture that is most shrouded in mystery, and attacks it because it is “low hanging fruit”. If he can get us to doubt that part of the Word, then it is that much easier to doubt the other parts of the Word. Laugh at the “slippery slope” fears all you want, but it is patently obvious. This is sad.
Kerry–I want to be sure I’m hearing your correctly. Are you saying that you have an “Inerrant/Infallible” view of scripture?
This topic has been something I’ve been struggling with for the last couple of years – maybe longer. I think I’ve always had kind of the “magic-book” view of scripture along with a “God’s rule-book for his people” sort of view. I don’t know what started to change my view. Maybe the sense I get from some that the Bible is the be-all, end-all when it comes to the Bible. Maybe it’s the “fourth member of the Trinity” view that some seem to have regarding the Bible. Anyway, I’ve been trying to figure out what the Bible’s nature is. I can’t go along with the “True” idea – it’s just not my Doubting Thomas personality to accept much of anything just because someone tells me it’s true. I like to look into it more. As for the Inerrant/Infallible view, I buy into that to a degree. What I mean by that, I guess, is that I just don’t think that parts of the Bible were written with the purpose of telling historical truth. The first two chapters of Genesis may not have been intended to be a recording of how the Universe came into existence.