How Can the Bible Be Authoritative?
19 January 2006 by Gil
Since I work at a Bible college I am obviously interested in the question of what the Bible is and how it functions in the church, particularly how it functions as an authority. I recently came across one of the more helpful articles I have ever read on this subject. The author is N.T. Wright and the article is called ‘How Can the Bible Be Authoritative?’ His basic premise is that many Christians (he singles out evangelicals) have turned the Bible into something it is not. We have decided that God gave us the wrong kind of book. We wanted the answer book, the religious encyclopedia full of facts about God and principles concerning how we should live. We wanted the rule book that would give us clear guidance on every conceivable ethical or moral issue. What we got was a story, or a series of stories, that record God’s ongoing interaction with his people. Wright argues that our temptation has been to replace the kind of Bible we have with the kind of Bible we wish we had.
My conclusion, then, is this: that the regular views of scripture and its authority which we find not only outside but also inside of evangelicalism fail to do justice to what the Bible actually is – a book, an ancient book, an ancient narrative book. They function by turning that book into something else, and by implying thereby that God has, after all, given us the wrong sort of book.
The most intriguing part of the article, at least for me, was Wright’s discussion on how it is that a story can be authoritative. He writes:
Somehow, the authority which God has invested in this book is an authority that is exercised through the people of God telling and retelling their story as the story of the world, telling the covenant story as the true story of creation.
Wright imagines a Shakespeare play whose fifth act had been lost. The first four acts provide the characterization, plot and direction to make the possibility of staging the entire play seem like a legitimate option. The first four acts would, Wright argues, be authoritative as the actors sought to create the fifth, but not in the sense of forcing the actors to repeat them. The authority would lie in the fact that the actors would be required to enter into the story in a way that was faithful to the first four acts. Wright’s point seems to be that the church lives in an improvisational ‘fifth stage’ in which it is required to live out our ‘story’ in a way that is faithful to the fundamental elements of that story which are found in scripture.
This is not to compare the Bible to Shakespeare but rather to try to get our heads around how the narrative of scripture can be authoritative. I am intrigued by Wright’s understanding of authority. If any of you can get through the entire article I’d be interested your thoughts.
We were just talking about the authority, “inspiration”, and “inerrancy of the Bible yesterday in my NT class. The professor said something that I had never really considered before, and I think it goes along nicely with some of Wright’s points. His claim was that the canonical process led to certain books being considered “inspired” or “authoritative”; in other words, the order of the process is reversed from what many of us may assume. (at least I probably did) Early Christians, when making decisions about the canonical status of the various books of the Bible, didn’t sit down and ask themselves “Is this book, or is it not ‘inspired?’” Mostly, books “got in” because they were already occupying a position of prominence in the public worship of the church, because they had apostolic authority, or because they were believed to be of universal value - NOT because they were considered to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God.
Maybe Wright’s point about finding ourselves in the story - in an ‘improvisational fifth stage’ is demonstrated by the entire canonical process. Early Christians certainly didn’t seem to consider these books to be an “answer book, or a religious encyclopedia full of facts about God and principles concerning how they should live.” The found these books useful in their participation in the ongoing story of God, humanity, and the world. I think that we fail to do the Bible justice when we, all too frequently, treat it as a repository of facts and doctrines about God. Maybe part of accepting the Bible as authoritative is accepting it as a gift from people earlier than us in the story, who found these texts to be formative and instructional.
I’m still not quite sure what to make of the prof’s claim that the canonical process led to the books being “inspired” and “authoritative.” What was the status of these books, say, in about the year 126 A.D.? Were they in limbo? Waiting to be “inspired?” Not yet “inspired?” It seems to invest an awful lot of significance and authority in what appears to be a rather reactionary process where books were chosen for overwhelmingly functional reasons - i.e. in response to certain 3-4th century heresies, or specific liturgical usages. Maybe that’s not a bad thing - maybe it was just a really important time in the ongoing story. I’m not really sure. Certainly makes one scratch the head though…
Hey Gil, I hope all things are well with you.
I apologize for not having read the article yet, but your subject and Ryan’s response makes me unable to contain my thoughts on canon: “the first four acts would, Wright argues, be authoritative as the actors sought to create the fifth, but not in the sense of forcing the actors to repeat them.”
The greater the church’s mass of individuals, i don’t think (if the canon remained open) any OTHER literature will ever be considered authoritative. And this disappoints my desires for a expansion on the “story”. I want new material the old can be interpreted through while still in line with the revelation of Jesus himself. Am I being unrealistic here?
Hey Gil, I just came back from a conference with Leonard Sweet. While there us for Mennonite pastors sat with an Anglican Priest, at a conference put on by the Pentecostal Assemblies of God. Yup, only in this post-modern time could we get that mix. Any way the Anglican priest was saying that N.T. Wright is speaking in Toronto and then Minneapolis (only 8 hours from here). Tempting to go, but now one of our pastors is really thinking that we need to get Wright out to do a conference here in Manitoba… when it happens I’ll let you know… Here’s another way to look at the Bible (Taken from Sweet) The first command in the Bible is “You may EAT freely any fruit in the Garden (Gen 2:16) and the last command is come and DRINK the water of life without charge (Rev 22:17) So the book ends of the Bible are Eat and Drink, and everything else in-between is just a big feast
Gil, waht an excellent article. I’ll have to read it again to drink it all in, but one quote is standing out for me now in regards to the Shakespearian analogy. Wright wrote, “Better, it might be felt, to give the key parts to highly trained, sensitive and experienced Shakespearian actors, who would immerse themselves in the first four acts, and in the language and culture of Shakespeare and his time, and who would then be told to work out a fifth act for themselves.”
Who are these experienced biblical actors? I think I know a few. This kind of statement energizes me and yet I know will infuriate others. Is it valid?
Interesting comments here. I think the whole ‘process of canonization’ discussion is an interesting one, particularly since it is such a human process. As evangelicals it seems like we (I speak from my own background) ignore the fact that the NT had a functional role in the early church.
Ryan, I think you put your finger on it when you wondered about the ’status’ of the NT books prior to canonization. I think the NT books were recognized as significant because the early church recognized the need to remember the story of Jesus accurately. The idea of ‘what kind writing’ the NT was may have been secondary.
That is why I think the question of an open canon is difficult (getting at Jerry’s comment). The immediate question I would have is ‘who would decide what is authoritative?’ A church? An individual? The value of the NT is not that we have authoritative writings but that we have the writings of those who were close to Jesus. That seems (at least to me) to be a non-repeatable historical moment. That is why I would still hold that the NT is authoritative in a way that literature since that point would not be. There is obviously profound meaning to be found elsewhere but that’s probably another discussion.
Is part of the problem, simply a Protestant dilemna?
If the Catholic faiths, however imperfectly, have been attempting to live out the “fifth act” from the time of Christ until now, using word, tradition, magisterium, and the relative present tense of cultures, discerned honestly through Spirit, then in fact the canon, such as it is, remains and is, “open”.
All I can say for sure, is that in reading Mr. Wright’s perspectives, I was nodding in agreement and thinking how very “Catholic” it sounded to me.
Gil, one of the great joys of Catholicism is being able to share in the “Spirit” and relive the “historical moment”, through “Holy Communion”.
Ryan, I still owe you an answer.
Paul,
Generally speaking I think there it’s fair to say that Protestantism (in its extreme varieties) misunderstands the Bible. We seem to have the idea that it dropped out of the sky in inspired form and we have not taken seriously the idea that there was a commmunity of believers that were responsible for putting it together.
Having said that I am confused by a few of the things you mentioned. What, for example, do you mean by the ‘relative present tense of culture, discerned through the Spirit’? How is that a uniquely Catholic phenomenon?
I appreciate the emphasis on tradition and I think this is one of the major errors that evangelicals are guilty of. We think that we can somehow short circuit two thousand years of history and get ‘back to the Bible’ when it is impossible to do so. I’m not convinced however that things like ‘tradition’, the Spirit, and Holy Communion are the sole province of the Catholic church. The Protestant in me will not go that quietly. Thanks for your comments.
So I read the article. I thought it started well, but the more I read, the more I didn’t like it. Wright seems conflicted. I like the Shakespearean analogy but Wright gives the impression throughout his last pages that the same difficulties we have with understanding God, we have with understanding the bible (ie. just as incomprehensible as God).
I think Wright leans more in the -biblical words inspired by God- than in the -biblical authors inspired by God- category. And if so, then the pursuit of ‘writing’ a fifth act is way out of our reach.
A combination of the Shakespearean analogy and the biblical-WORDS-inspired-by-God category asks us to not only reveal God’s nature in our identities, but also reveal God’s essence in a written account of our actions and words.
an open canon is more and more acceptable for me
I’m not sure why we don’t teach the canonical process in Sunday School instead of keeping it this naughty little secret to screw with our faith systems when we are too mature to back out of our preconceptions. This discussion also highlights for me how messed up foundationalism is. We definately need a better understanding of the authority of Scripture.
Dale,
What would an ‘open canon’ look like? I think you’re right in pointing to a problem with foundationalist thinking and Scripture (the Bible is the one certain foundation upon which we can safely ground all our ideas about God) but I’m not entirely sure what you are advocating.
by open cannon I mean that there should be a process whereby we can interact with more recent and to some extent contemporary writings to give them at least as much authority as the Pauline epistles have. To some extent in a less formalized way we are already doing this with authors like augustine. On the surface this might look like we are devalueing Pauline scripture but actually we are only holding to the idea that God can still speak authoritatively through the spiritual leaders of the day. i think there would need to be some distance of time before we would allow writings to enter our scriptural cannon. i think this may be part of what Wright is getting at with making the Bible into the book we want it be. especially in the rationist/dispensationalist/fundamentalist evangelical tradition. the Bible’s cannon had to be closed to tighten up the already leaky propositions of faith. i know this is pretty deviant and i don’t this lightly realizing any attempt to reopen the cannon assumes that i or others might possess enough spiritual wisdom to make decisions on these faith issues (which books are in or out).
Hey Dale,
I liked what you had to say. Especially the line: “On the surface this might look like we are devaluing Pauline scripture but actually we are only holding to the idea that God can still speak authoritatively through the spiritual leaders of the day.”
I know we’re not close to the historical witness of Jesus on earth, but we are close to his spirit on earth. So what is the Holy Spirit communicating to the Church that’s new, meant for our day? If the bible is a commentary on the two greatest commandments, why has the commentary ended?
People say, ‘The bible has everything I need to know to act righteous in this world.’ Does it really? Is the bible some sort of spiritual encyclopedia?
Is the opening of the canon a scary idea because who knows what people would declare to be a word from God? Isn’t this happening anyway?
I wonder if one of the reasons people don’t want the canon to be open because to open it would make it less divine.
Re: Jerry’s comment that perhaps opening the canon would make the Bible seem ‘less divine.’
I should preface my comments by saying that I really have no clue what “opening the canon” would actually look like. Who would open it? The pope? An Orthodox council? Protestants? Who would have the authority to do it even if we could, miraculously, agree that it ought to be done?
Having said that, I wonder about how ‘divine’ we do or should think this book is anyway. The classes I take here go to extraordinary lengths to demonstrate how profoundly human the texts of the Bible are, and how essential understanding this is to interpretation. If we didn’t think so, why would we care about something like Hebrew literary conventions? Greek conceptual schemes? Why would you care about context at all, unless you took seriously the human component of the biblical texts? I don’t even think we know what we’re saying when we say that the Bible is ‘divine.’ Maybe it does provide comfort to think that a book exists which is God’s ‘manual’ delivered to human beings, but as has been well said here and elsewhere, this doesn’t seem to be what anyone in the early years of Christianity considered these texts to be.
We may say that the Bible is divine, but in practice, we seem to treat it like most other books -highlighting the parts we like, ignoring those we don’t. I like N.T. Wright’s point (p 23-25 in the book Gil mentioned in his most recent post) that authority belongs to God, not the Bible. The Bible does not possess authority on its own - it is not divine, but a vehicle through which divinity speaks. I wonder if we(I) fully appreciate the difference…
The more I think about the idea of an open canon the more I think that one of the main values of a ‘closed’ canon is that the Bible retains the ability to challenge and confront us. Left to our own we will likely find writings or ideas that support our own assumptions and reinforce our own sense of personal security. Implicit in the idea of having an authoritative text is that we ourselves are not the authorities. This is a difficult thing to do.
It’s not that this ‘proof texting’ doesn’t happen in biblical interpretation - it is clear that it does. People have found justification for all kinds of idiotic and destructive beliefs in the Bible. But as long as we have this one ‘given’ this one ‘rule’ for Christian identity, we are forced to deal with the Bible in all its ugliness and beauty and allow it to challenge us and correct us. Hopefully if we do our interpretation of the Bible in conversation with others and not on our own, God can still use this book to change us and shape us.
I’m not sure why or how authoritative and ‘closed’ have to go together Gil. Essentially, if I understand the canonical process correctly, the debates did not so much center on the authority or divinity of anyone particular text but rather with whether or not these said texts were contextually consistent with the general messages and themes. That’s why fulfilled prophesy was such a determinant. I understand the canonical fathers were not as interested in any sort of pronunciation of divinity on these texts but more of redaction of the prevailing texts into a common core.
If you look at the history of the Old Testament you find the Talmud emerging along side the Torah and given authority to govern God’s people. Although it did not survive inside our Bible, some of what I’ve read suggests that the canonical councils saw their in a similar light as establishing an accompanying document to the Torah. Even if that is conjecture which I’ll easily concede, it does provide us with an important perspective on authority. Let’s take Paul’s challenge to “test everything,” (1Thess 5). Everything would also include his own work/writings. But if his work is authoritative it should no longer require testing. But in that case he probably should have said something like this, “test everything until you somehow prove that it is authoritative then stop questioning it.” In fact in challenging to test everything he was taking authority to given instruction and confident that his own work would not be found wanting. But the pure brilliance of this statement is that it was authoritative and open for contest at the same time.
If we say that the cannon is strictly closed we are choosing to put restrictions on God’s revelation to humanity. While our great concerns for diluted doctrine and theology may give us good cause to restrict the canon – I suggest that affixing restrictions on God’s activity is perilous.
What do you think Hauervas would say on this one?
Some really good discussion here. I think what interests me most here right now is why we are looking for more authority in our lives. Not to be received as a negative comment, but some of you who are asking for an open canon are good representations of our anti-authoritarian culture. And the rest of us are right behind you whether we like it or not. We don’t accept the authority of the church on our lives as we should. And certainly the Scriptures have become a book of convenience. So why do you want more of that?
Jeff, I don’t fully understand what you’re getting at, but I’ll throw you some more and maybe we’ll eventually understand where we’re coming from.
I want more of God’s influence/authority in the church. I think an open canon would give God more room (formally speaking, for those mentored in the church) to use his authority in areas of our lives overlooked.
I’m sure you and Gil think, ultimately, God is our ‘given’ and our ‘rule’. If Jesus’ spirit is present in the church, he is enough for our ‘christian identity’. But, of course, that gives no reason to throw the bible away.
If Gil will permit me to use his words with a few changes - “Hopefully if we do our interpretation of the [church's experiences with/of God] in conversation with others and not our own, God can still use [these experiences] to change us and shape us.”
I used Gils words here to emphasize how much greater the canon is and can be than 66 books.
If the 66 books of the Bible really are just records of ‘experiences’ people had with God, and our sole task is to see how these ‘experiences’ have the potential (or not) to shape us, then it’s hard for me to see how the church’s ongoing interaction with these texts can do anything but degenerate into a sort of relativistic quagmire. Who determines which experiences with God are normative or worthy of emulation? Presumably each individual believer. If the Bible is nothing but a record of human experience then I truly am free to pick and choose what I like and don’t like - I am the ultimate authority, and religion becomes little more than sanctified therapy - whatever works for me/gets me through the day. I don’t have nearly enough faith in myself to undertake such a task. At some level, we have to assume that these texts, while recording people’s experiences of God, somehow also perform the more important prescriptive task of challenging and changing our experience - i.e. declaring what it should or could be in the light of who God is, and where history is going.
Ryan, you said, “Who determines which experiences with God are normative or worthy of emulation?” How about God?
You also said, “If the Bible is nothing but a record of human experience then I truly am free to pick and choose what I like and don’t like - I am the ultimate authority, and religion becomes little more than sanctified therapy - whatever works for me/gets me through the day. I don’t have nearly enough faith in myself to undertake such a task.” Then don’t take up the task. Let God. Use your God-given mind and ask God what he likes. Find out what others think God likes. Compare opinions within the church, and again, ask what God likes.
Let God “…perform the more important prescriptive task of challenging and changing our experience - i.e. declaring what it should or could be in the light of who God is, and where history is going.”
Don’t replace God with the bible. He’s been known to be jealous.
Jerry, you said “Then don’t take up the task. Let God. Use your God-given mind and ask God what he likes. Find out what others think God likes. Compare opinions within the church, and again, ask what God likes.” I appreciate your point. It is important to genuinely seek God’s wisdom in each age, rather than blindly trying to imitate or be bound to the past. My only problem with this is that finding out what “others think God likes” has proven notoriously problematic, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries. Virtually every Christian “Restoration Movement” (ie - any one of the numerous sects of Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Snake Handlers of the Appalachians, the list goes on) did precisely what you are suggesting. The leader of each one of these groups claimed to have been spoken to by God, and had little problem finding people that “thought that God liked” the same thing he/she did. Our opinions of what we think “God likes” have a nasty tendency to be horribly wrong, even if there is anything resembling consensus. What we need is some way of judging whether our interpretations of what God “likes” are RIGHT or not, and, like it or not, Scripture has historically performed this role. The problem is that our “God-given minds” can still be used in appalling ways. God may give us the minds, but we’re the ones who use them , and this can, and does lead to disastrous consequences.
Several things disturb me about where and how this discussion has evolved.
1. Some points of view have been deemed to be anti-authoritarian based on a consideration of a more open cannon. I’m just not sure what rational/logical process allows us to make that kind of leap. I suppose if we were to argue that the complete sum of God’s revelation to humanity is captured in the Bible in it’s current form – then perhaps I could entertain such a notion. I doubt that any of us would dare to espouse such a position. I would agree that culturally we are moving to less authority. This is not good. An open cannon does not necessarily make us less authoritarian. What it may do is (I feel) challenge what has become a typically co-dependant relationship we have had with God where he allows us to rationally figure him out and he gets to dictate our every move. (You want an example? How about every gr. 12 student who wanders into my office at some point and says, “What is God’s will for my life?”)
2. I am well aware of my own failings and those of fellow humans in ‘getting’ right the interpretation of God’s revelation to humanity. I find it absurd that we could want to use cultic diversions from orthodoxy to point this out. Pure fear mongering I suspect! Because if you read Jerry’s word’s carefully, orthodoxy uses an overarching sense of humility with one’s own interpretation of Scripture or any other revelation. Just because egotistical maniacs (cults) have twisted Scripture to their benefit in no way logically tells us that Spirit sensitive interpretation within the accountability of a humble community doesn’t or can’t work. But bless your souls for trying to say that. Do wanna wrestle?
It is completely possible for me to say that the Bible is a central core to Christian faith and that it may not be finished. I like to see the logical process (in equation form) that allows us to make the kind of statements we have here.
I just sense too much fear around this whole subject. and not eh kind of fear that respects God - more than kind of fear that senses a loss of control on traditonal positions for their own sake and the sake of our vocational remuneration…
Dale, you said “I am well aware of my own failings and those of fellow humans in ‘getting’ right the interpretation of God’s revelation to humanity. I find it absurd that we could want to use cultic diversions from orthodoxy to point this out.”
Let me ask you this Dale: Do you think that any of the charismatic leaders of the 19th century ‘Restoration Movements’ sat down one day and said, “maybe I’ll start a cult today…” I don’t think so. I suspect that these were well-intentioned, albeit misguided people, who were firmly convinced, based on their interpretation of the Bible and the freedom with which it could be added to, that God could/should/did speak to them in ways similar to the way he did during the formative years of the early church.
“Just because egotistical maniacs (cults) have twisted Scripture to their benefit in no way logically tells us that Spirit sensitive interpretation within the accountability of a humble community doesn’t or can’t work.”
I’m simply pushing things to their logical conclusions here Dale. Far from being fringe ‘outfits’ based on lunatic eccentrics, I’m talking about some fairly prominent (at least numerically)groups here. JW’s and Seventh-Day Adventists make up an enormous population worldwide, and especially on the African continent - far more populous than our little Mennonite clan, or any number of other Protestant denominations. On what basis would you say that their claims are wrong? Not enough consensus? Well their message certainly has found a home hasn’t it? They’ve found consensus SOMEWHERE. Not the RIGHT consensus? Well, based on what? Who are we to say, after all? How do you refute groups like this without appealing to the manner in which orthodox Christians have traditionally interpreted the Bible?
You accused me of fear-mongering, but this isn’t fear mongering at all - I’m just looking around the world at established groups (the word ‘cult’ is a matter of perspective isn’t it? Many of them consider Catholics and mainline Protestants to be apostates) who have felt free to tinker with the canon, and claim authoritative, unique revelation from the same God that we worship. We hardly even bother taking their claims seriously, but based on this discussion, I wonder what our basis for dismissing them so quickly is.
the cultic diversion essentially choose to stop the -ask God -ask the people -ask God -ask people cycle. That’s the cycle I think Jerry is trying to advocate. It is plainly obvious that even in evangelical circles we have often gotten it wrong on interpretation. I would want to be very careful not to claim that the reason cults evolve is primarily due to misinterpretation of Scripture. Rather it could be clearly established that their interpretation of Scripture followed other agendas inherent to their personalities and desires. To that end i still maintain that cults cannot be used as legitimate evidence of the failure of interpretation in an open cannon. It is appropriate to disqualify ourselves inadequate spiritual maturity. Which i would suggest leads us to the proper posture of humility needed to approach interpretation in the first place. And if you are disqualified then it is reasonable to assume that we all are - even those founding fathers who solidified the current cannon we now hold. So in essence if we follow your arguement of disqualification we should naturally call our own cannon into question.
My intention is not to suggest that certain parts of the Bible should NOT be there any more. My only contention is that perhaps we can contemplate how other writings might be given similar status as those of Scripture. And I would also suggest that we already are doing exactly that with Assisi and bonhoeffer and Dobson. I think there could be something very positive about conveneing a council that could evaluate the possible authority of certain other writings for the present and future church.
Sorry if I was too confrontive…
“Assisi and bonhoeffer and Dobson”
Wow, not sure if I have ever read these three names in the same sentence ever before!
yeah sorry I was harkening back to my Sesame Street days “which of these things just doesn’t belong…”