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 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 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 :
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.
Great article, Jeremy. This is just the thing I was trying to articulate (miserably mind you!) at my place. I was taught by my father – an aethiest who regularly reads the Bible – that the Bible’s value is in the narrative. So I started my walk believing the narrative was about Christ. Then church doctrine got me thinking that was wrong. That it was about “Abundant Life” and how to get it, one verse at a time. I’ll read that .
Missy,
What you said is one of the reasons I started thinking more about this, so you articulated it fine! Thanks!
Jeremy,
Excellent post! Too often the church is filled with folks who have been raised in a controlling church, and don’t know any different. Maybe that is why I was so comfortable with church for many years while in the military and out. Over the last few years I have had this uneasy feeling that in addition to commerm we have also failed at being loving and compassionate towards our fellow believers and those outside the church. Jesus is the supreme example of what I am talking about.
He seemed to reserve His rebuke for the controlling religious authorities of His days on earth.
Your brother,
Jim
Jim,
Thanks for the comment.
By the way, I really appreciated your most recent post on your blog. I am glad your employer was wise enough to know that he didn’t have to fire you just because certain people in different parts of the country thought you shouldn’t be working there any more. It’s amazing that these people think they can get others fired, but as you know, that is kind of how I lost my job, so maybe when they saw how successful they were with me, they decided to target you as well.
Anyway, thanks for the post. I hope you do get back to blogging in the future, but I understand the need for a break.
Hey, have you had a chance to visit Adullum Denver yet? I’m meeting today with a guy who has been working pretty closely with what they are doing in Denver, and am excited to learn more.
Keep in touch!
Jeremy
Jeremy:
You are no longer with GES for reasons of your own making. Reasons I can only guess have to do with the direction you have taken, which you are exhibiting here at your blog.
Jim Johnson’s departure from the blogosphere is not at all unexpected. He discredited himself by an act of his own will to commit massive plagiarism. He disgraces himself because he is still combative, defiant and unrepentant over it. Others called for his dismissal from RMBC. I told them they are wasting their time if they think RMBC will hold Johnson accountable for plagiarism.
You men need to stop blame-shifting and accept the consequences that you have earned for yourselves.
LM
Lou!
Welcome back! I’m glad you are still reading my blog.
I don’t think that either Jim or I are trying to blame anyone for anything. I don’t regret anything I have ever written, and I doubt Jim does either. I may not agree with everything I have ever written, but that’s okay. I’m growing in knowledge of the truth.
But if certain people want to get all worked up about something I have written, that’s great with me! As a friend of mine always says: “Love me or hate me; just don’t ignore me!” I do, of course, expect people to be cordial and kind on my own blog, which is not asking too much.
Anyway, thanks for the comment.
That it was about “Abundant Life” and how to get it, one verse at a time. — Missy
Or worse, that it’s a magic book, a grimoire of one-line verbal-only-component spells. Quote, BE-LEEEEVE, and ZAP!
Which aspect of the New Perspective on Paul is wrong in your opinion? There is a diversity of views within NPP but I’ve yet to see a critique which comes from someone who has really understood Wright’s perspective.
Marc,
When I wrote this article, I was disagreeing with Wright about his view of justification and imputed righteousness. His recent book, Justification, which I have recently read and reviewed for this blog, helped me understand his view better. I, like many others, did not exactly understand what he was arguing. I am still mulling over the concepts of his book, but I am not as opposed to them as I once was.
So I am not the guy you are looking for… I am not someone who has really understood Wright’s perspective and yet still critques it. When I critiqued it, I didn’t really understand it…now that I understand it more, my critique has waned.