Introduction
This presentation was part of my Graduate Diploma in Theology at Charles Sturt University. This assessment item involved presenting thoughts about the authority of the Bible to a group of five colleagues, all of whom are well-educated in non-theological areas and work within an Evangelical Christian organisation. The content of the 20-minute presentation can be found in the attached PowerPoint slides, which include brief speaker’s notes.
I chose this topic in the light of our lecturer’s challenges that those who do not hold a high view of Scripture need to grapple with where our knowledge of God rests if it is not Scripture, and secondly how Jesus’ revelation of God can be accepted if Jesus’ view of Scripture is not. Although the presentation does not directly address those issues, they were in my mind as I worked through my own view of the Bible and sought to pose questions that would help others think through their pre-suppositions.
The presentation was designed to lead people from what others have said about the status of the Bible towards a reflection on what they believe themselves.
Précis
The Bible plays a significant role in any Christian theology and yet there is a broad spectrum of views on what that role should be. According to David Hesselgrave and Edward Rommen, there are respected Christian scholars who consider the Bible to be myths, writings of the enlightened, and divine writing, but most view the Bible as inspired writings (Hesselgrave and Rommen 1989, ch. 10). A personal stance on the status and authority of the Bible affects one’s whole approach to following Jesus, both what is believed and what is enacted.
In order to reflect on the authority of the Bible and the basis of that authority, this presentation was framed by four questions. The first three were:
- What does the Bible say about itself?
- This included discussion of 2 Peter 3:16 and 2 Timothy 3:16
- We looked at uses of the terms “Scripture” and “word of God”
- We compared this to the Qur’an, which is far more self-referential that the Bible.
- What does Jesus say about the Bible?
- What has the Church said about the Bible?
- This section included quotes from a dozen sources (Irenaeus 1986, 414; Jerome 2007, 88; Gregory of Nyssa 1892, 5:439; Calvin 1536, 71–72; “Articles of Religion” 1562; Cano 2007; Rahner 2007; McGrath 2007b, 105; McGrath 2007a, 109; White 2007, 117)
Discussion
This presentation was deliberately crafted as a series of questions rather than answers, and ended with an explicit call for the listeners to reflect on the standing of the Bible in their own faith journey. The fourth question that rounded out the structure of the presentation brought the earlier theoretical ideas back to something more practical, namely what we mean by authority (Wright 1991) and what authority we ourselves give to the Bible in our own lives. I suggested that just as Jesus asked his disciples “But what about you? … Who do you say I am?” (Luke 9:20), so it is important to not only consider what others say about the Bible, but be clear about what we personally affirm and honest about why.
Several people gave direct responses to this fourth question, all showing a strong degree of personal investment in the Bible’s authority. One participate used the phrase “ultimate authority” and another “final authority”. The same two people and a third echoed the reasoning of N.T. Wright, that it is our faith in God that leads us to view the Bible as authoritative.
The discussion moved on to revelation in general, with one person noting that you can simply look outside to know that there is a creator. The Bible has authority because it comes from that creator. But the Bible is not the only source of God’s word: apart from the revelation in nature, there are also times when God instructs us individually. Other participants were unsure about the status of such personal revelations. One wondered whether it contradicts the statement from the Anglican Articles of Religion, that Holy Scripture is all anyone needs for salvation (“Articles of Religion” 1562). A closer reading of that Article, however, reveals plenty of room for truths outside Scripture.
Another noted that a risk of trusting personal revelation is that human reason or experience may be elevated over Scripture. He proposed that even personal revelation must be weighed up according to what’s in the Bible.
On the issue of Jesus challenging some passages of the Old Testament (e.g. Matthew 5, John 8), one person suggested that there is a significant shift in perspective pre- and post-resurrection, and that even though these verses precede that salvific turn, they point towards the post-resurrection stance in which we no longer live under the Law. Another participant preferred to think that Jesus was not so much challenging the Old Testament as challenging interpretations that had grown around the Old Testament.
Conclusion
In this presentation, I sought to tease out people’s existing ideas about the authority of the Bible and to assist them to reflect on their personal commitments to that authority. One participant in particular showed that he had grasped this purpose by asking the group to consider the attitude of the Berean Jews reported in Acts 17. Although for them, “the Scriptures” would have meant what we call the Old Testament, can we apply the same way of thinking to our enlarged Scriptures? That is, when a new idea is presented, do we examine the Scriptures every day to see if the idea is true?
It is that personal commitment to the authority of Scriptures that makes a practical difference to how we live. It is an approach that acknowledges that the writing, transmission, definition of the canon, and our reading all need to be inspired by the same God. Throughout that process there is an interplay between God’s action and human action.
Reference List
- “Articles of Religion.” 1562. In The Book of Common Prayer, 629–50. Oxford University Press.
- Calvin, John. 1536. Institutes of the Christian Religion. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.
- Cano, Melchior. 2007. “Melchior Cano on the Church as Interpreter of Scripture.” In The Christian Theology Reader, edited by Alister E. McGrath, Third Edition, 107–8. Blackwell Pub.
- Gregory of Nyssa. 1892. Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, Etc. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Vol. 5. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church 2. Wm B. Eerdmans. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.x.iii.ii.html.
- Hesselgrave, David J, and Edward Rommen. 1989. Contextualization. Baker Book House.
- Irenaeus. 1986. “Against Heresies.” In The Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, 1:359–567. Wm B. Eerdmans.
- Jerome. 2007. “Jerome on the Roles of Scripture.” In The Christian Theology Reader, edited by Alister E. McGrath, Third Edition, 87–89. Blackwell Pub.
- McGrath, Alister E., ed. 2007a. “The Formula of Concord on Scripture and the Theologians.” In The Christian Theology Reader, Third Edition, 109–10. Blackwell Pub.
- ———. , ed. 2007b. “The Gallic Confession on the Canon of Scripture.” In The Christian Theology Reader, Third Edition, 104–5. Blackwell Pub.
- Rahner, Karl. 2007. “Karl Rahner on the Authority of Scripture.” In The Christian Theology Reader, edited by Alister E. McGrath, Third Edition, 152–56. Blackwell Pub.
- White, Francis. 2007. “Francis White on Scripture and Tradition.” In The Christian Theology Reader, edited by Alister E. McGrath, Third Edition, 117–18. Blackwell Pub.
- Wright, N.T. 1991. “How Can the Bible Be Authoritative? (The Laing Lecture for 1989).” Vox Evangelica 21: 7–32.