For many months now, I have been developing a new approach to reading and studying the Bible. It’s still in the “theoretical” stage, so I won’t stick my neck out yet by explaining what it is. I’m pretty excited about it though, because it has really helped in my understanding and application of various passages which have troubled me for many years. It drastically simplifies the “rules of Bible study” which few people can grasp and remember. People can get excited about reading Scripture, rather than worried about “reading it wrong.” Furthermore, all the various systems of theology seem to have their own rules for how to understand Scripture, which is not only confusing, but seems to suggest that theologians develop their rules of Bible study based on what they want the Bible to say rather than on some external, literary standard.
In other words, I am developing a Bible reading strategy that truly puts the Bible back into the hands of the people. Despite claims to the contrary, modern seminaries, scholars, and pastors have effectively set themselves up as the gatekeepers of biblical information. If you really want to know what the Bible means, you have to go to them. I think this is terribly wrong, and am working on a way to reverse this trend.
So it was with great excitement and interest that I recently read an essay by N. T. Wright called “How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?” I believe Wright is wrong with his “New Perspective on Paul” idea, but I think he is right on target with this essay and helped confirm some of what I have been thinking about a new (or old) approach to reading the Bible. Here are some quotes from his essay:
After reviewing the various popular views on biblical authority, he says,
When people in the church talk about authority they are very often talking about controlling people or situations. They want to make sure that everything is regulated properly, that the church does not go off the rails doctrinally or ethically, that correct ideas and practices are upheld and transmitted to the next generation. …[But] is that really what the Bible is for? Is it there to control the church? Is it there simply to look up the correct answers to questions that we, for some reason, already know?
Have you noticed this? Generally, “the authority of Scripture” is brought up in cases where leaders or teachers want to control people who are under their own personal authority, and bring them back in line with what they believe are the proper beliefs and/or proper behavior, but which generally originated, not from careful study of Scripture, but from their preconceived theology or foundational culture.
Wright continues:
But much of what we call the Bible - the Old and New Testaments - is not a rule book; it is narrative. …How can an ancient narrative text be authoritative? How, for instance, can the book of Judges, or the book of Acts, be authoritative? It is one thing to go to your commanding officer first thing in the morning and have a string of commands barked at you. But what would you do if, instead, he began “Once upon a time…”?
This is the fundamental problem in Bible study. How is a story authoritative? Wright explains three different ways that this question has typically been answered. I wish I could review all three for you, but I don’t have the space. Suffice it to say, in my Bible college and seminary training, I learned to use all three as ”proper Bible study” methodology. And I always had a feeling that something was a bit askew with such methods. Wright basically shows that such methods make the results of Bible study authoritative, rather than the maintaining the Bible itself as authoritative. So in such cases, it is not really the Bible that is authoritative, but something else. Here is how he puts it:
The problem with all such solutions as to how to use the Bible is that they belittle the Bible and exalt something else. Basically they imply that God has, after all, given us the wrong sort of book and it is our job to turn it into the right sort of book by engaging in these hermeneutical moves, translation procedures or whatever.
This is what I was taught! Though never said in such a way, the basic view of “Bible study methods” is that the Bible cannot be taken as authoritative “as it is.” To truly apply it authoritatively, we must first use tools, rules, principles, and methods to boil it down, cut it up, slice, dice, flavor, rearrange, and systematize it. Only then, when we have our “timeless truth” can we apply the Bible authoritatively. I agree with Wright: This is a low view of inspiration, and it implies that God gave us the wrong kind of book.
What kind of book is the Bible? How should we read it? How can it be read authoritatively? Well, this post is already way too long, so I will tell you tomorrow what Wright suggests. Or, if you just can’t wait, you can go read it for yourself at the link I gave you above.
Exiles
The Tangible Kingdom
The Multiplying Church
Perspectives
An Unstoppable Force
Stripped