Here are a few of my favorite passages from The Last Word.
Much would-be Christian thought (including much would-be “biblical” Christian thought) in the last two hundred years has tacitly conceded these huge claims, turning “Kingdom of God” into “the hope for heaven after death” and treating Jesus’s death, at the most, as the mechanism whereby individual sinners can receive forgiveness and hope for an otherworldly future–leaving the politicians and economists of the Enlightenment to take over the running, and as it turns out the ruining, of the world. . . .Scripture itself, meanwhile, is muzzled equally by both sides. It is squelched into silence by the “secularists” who dismiss it as irrelevant, historically inaccurate and so on–as you would expect, since it might otherwise challenge their imperial dreams. Equally worrying, if not more so, it is squashed out of shape by many of the devout, who ignore its global, cosmic and justice-laden message and treat it only as the instrument of personal piety and the source of the true doctrine about eternal salvation. Secular and sacred readings–and the scholarship that has jostled between the two–have connived to produce shallow readings which, as we saw in the prologue, constitute our immediate problem. pg. 89-90.
What does it mean, within this setting, to appeal to “the authority of scripture”? This phrase is used as a way of saying, “A plague on all your scholarship; we just believe the Bible.” This is simply unsustainable. Without scholars to provide Greek lexicons and translations based on them, few today could read the New Testament. Without scholarship to explain the world of the first century, few today could begin to understand it. Scholarship of some sort is always assumed; what the protest often means, unfortunately is that the speakers prefer the scholarship implicit in their early training, which is now simply taken for granted as common knowledge, to the bother of having to wake up mentally and think frest thoughts. Again and again, such other scholarship, and such older traditions of reading, turn out to be flawed or in need of supplementing. Today’s and tomorrow’s will be just the same, of course, but this does not absolve us from constantly trying to do better, from the never-ending attempt to understand scripture more fully. . . .To affirm “the authority of scripture” is precisely not to say, “We know what scripture means and don’t need to raise any more questions.” It is always a way of saying that the church in each generation must make fresh and rejuvenated efforts to understand scripture more fully and live by it more thoroughly, even it that means cutting across cherished traditions. pg. 91
There is a great gulf fixed between those who want to prove the historicity of everything reported in the Bible in order to demonstrate that the Bible is “true” after all and those who, committed to living under the authority of scripture, remain open to what scripture itself actually teaches and emphasizes. Which is the bottom line: “proving the Bible to be true” (often with the effect of saying, “So we can go on thinking what we’ve always thought”) or taking it so seriously that we allow it to tell us things we’d never heard before and didn’t particularly want to hear? pg. 95
Telling Stories, Asking Questions, Learning Lessons
Life grows… it evolves… it changes. Our skin stretches to fit our bodies, throughout all phases of our lives. Life adapts to its culture, its environment, its collective thoughts and beliefs. God is life… He is the source. Do we contain God or does God contain us? I contest that God grows, evolves, and changes, stretching to fit our bodies, throughout all phases of our lives; adapting to our cultures, our environments, our thoughts and our beliefs. God is timeless and encompasses all. To truly be God, I feel this must be true. Can we be so arrogant to assume that we have it all figured out? Can we live like God is static when so much of what He has given us in life is anything but that? Commonly used Christian terms throughout recent history: Restoration, Transfiguration, Revolutionary, Transforming… these all involve motion. We were created in God’s own image. It’s not a stretch to say that Scripture is alive. Would it be unreasonable to say that Scripture is capable of evolving to encompass our lives, all of our lives? Those written words; the stories and the lessons, they are capable of so much! They are alive. What would it take to live life under the realization that Scripture can stretch to meet us wherever we’re at, at any place in time?
Though I agree with the above sentiments, how do we keep interpretation from being, “the flavor of the day” so to speak. How do we test “truth”? Define cultural or moral? Can I twist scripture to get my way?
Lynn, yes you can. All you have to do is join the emerging church movement, say that there is no way that we can objectively come to and understand scripture a like, make acknowledging Jesus’ sacrifice the ONLY requirement for salvation and then yes – sure, you are saved because as the old Burger King motto goes – you had it your way.
Regarding my previous post:
I don’t mean to suggest that scripture is so malleable that we can twist it to fit our needs. If anything, we should twist ourselves to fit it. However, I’m trying to say that maybe Scripture is so much bigger than what we commonly see it as. Maybe we sometimes just go through the motions because it’s what we were taught to do or what we are so used to doing. It’s comfortable. Rather than dive deep through the various layers, we troll across the surface of familiarity “So we can go on thinking what we?ve always thought” and “to the bother of having to wake up mentally and think fresh thoughts”(in reference to Wright’s quotes above). I agree there must be some litmus test of truth. I disagree, however that it’s wrong to think that “there is no way that we can objectively come to understand scripture a like”. Forget for a moment the overused and oversimplified tag “emergent”. In any case, would it be possible for us all to understand and embrace a unified and complete interpretation of Scripture? I think not. If only for the simple reality that we are all unique and individual in our perspectives. Are we threatened by growing with Scripture or allowing Scripture to grow with us? Or is it that we have it all nailed down already? No, Scripture is not Burger King, but I believe it is big enough and deep enough to meet us wherever we are, and from there it has the power to take us where we need to be if we allow it to.
However Lance, this is assuming that many people in churches of Christ don’t do this when this isn’t necessarily the case. Many of these people also don’t believe that it is possible for us all to understand and embrace a unified and complete interpretation of Scripture; however, it’s important that we believe it is possible, and just may be. How will it ever be possible if we believe it isn’t? If we don’t or believe that it’s not important, then we never will.
Also, I wasn’t comparing scripture to Burger King, but the slogan, or in this case, the attitude that we can worship and follow God any way we want, despite scriptural examples.
Complete agreement over Scripture is a wonderful ideal. I certainly do hope that it’s possible. However, if that is our goal then I believe we are missing the point. Differences are natural to our human condition. From difference rise the disciplines of tolerance, humility and love, which should ultimately trump differences. I’m not sure I subscribe to the theory that we all should agree on Scripture (I mean ‘all’ in the totalitarian sense, not just CoC). Many discoveries result from disagreement and maybe it’s dangerous to feel that we have Scripture all wrapped up and everyone should see it our way. Our similarities are where we should focus our efforts. We, as Christians, should be inclusive rather than exclusive.
What do you mean by difference? If cultural, then give me an example of what your talking about.
“Complete agreement over Scripture is a wonderful ideal. I certainly do hope that it?s possible. However, if that is our goal then I believe we are missing the point.”
This is a contradictory statement. Either it’s a wonderful ideal or we are missing the point in striving for unity in understanding – it can’t be both.
I agree that differences are natural, but then we shouldn’t expect people to come together to agree on anything objectively that either the Bible would say or that we would say. In other words, if people don’t believe in God and Christ, then according to your statement (and to be consistent) it should be fine with you.
The problem with any of that is that it opens up a wider door of acceptance than God allows. In essence, we end up throwing out the baby with the bath water in the name of tolerance, love and “inclusiveness”. It is clear from scripture in places like 1 Cor. 5 that not even the Apostle Paul nor Jesus did this. If so, Jesus would have never been nailed to the cross.
Wright’s thoughts remind me of what McLaren said in a generous orthodoxy. He says this: “Oddly, I’ve never heard of a church or denomination that asked people to affirm a doctrinal statement like this: The purpose of Scripture is to equip God’s people for good works. Shouldn’t a simple statement like this be far more important than statement with words foreign to the Bible’s vocabulary about itself (inerrant, authoritative, literal, revelatory, objective, absolute, propositional, etc.)” (pp. 164-165).
Well my answer to McClaren (and maybe to Wright also) is NO. The reason why should be obvious. If I believe the Bible in my hands is the absolute and objective Word of God, then when I read it, obedience, among other things, will tend to be on my mind. But if I do not believe this, then either the Scripture can be set aside as a guide to good works, as it pleases me, or the Bible can become a nose of wax, to be molded into whatever my idea of good works might be.
I understand what Wright is trying to say, but does a “fresh interpretation” really change a message that is eternal? If I “rejuvenate” my hermeneutic does the command to love others as I love myself suddenly produce a different outcome…maybe it evolves into getting my felt needs met or something. Well, if I need my felt needs and wants accomodated I’ll watch Oprah and Dr. Phil. If I need eternal questions answered, I’ll seek the whole counsel of the God. I think I remember it saying he is the same ‘yesterday, today and forever.’
I think the point is that we need to keep in mind that our motives, understanding, interpretations, etc. can be wrong. We need to constantly be re-evaluating ourselves against scripture. That means letting go of what we “know” and relearning it all from scratch every now and then. If what you believe is true, than it will be reinforced; otherwise it is time to adjust your core beliefs to reflect what you learn (or relearn, rather).
Our way of doing church, whatever that is, isn’t perfect. It is flawed logic to think we’ve already achieved it. So there is always room for growth.
Wade, I’ve copied the quote you’ve given us and sent it to my staff and to the eldership of the Rochester Church. Thank you for pulling it up for us.
You guys need to read Wright’s book It answers many of the questions you are raising.