The following is a general statement of my approach to Scripture. If it isn't satisfactory, my only response is - tough.
I have been schooled, or at least attempted to be schooled, in the use of Scripture, recently, and I thought it only fair that I lay out, once for all, my views on Scripture. This will be a nice way for me, in the future, to deal with such questions. All I need do is refer interested or querulous persons here. If they still don't like it, there is always the option of going elsewhere.
First, I believe that the Bible is not the wellspring of the Christian faith, but rather the testimony of those who faithfully recorded what they profess to be acts of God. As such, the canon of Scripture is a guide, a resource, rather than the final word on any number of subjects. It is formative, but not necessarily normative, for Christian faith and life. It contains much to commend itself, but also much that any thoughtful person should at least question. Phyllis Trible,a feminist Scripture scholar, wrote a number of years ago Texts of Terror, which outlined several Biblical texts that are examples of holy-sanctioned violence against women. Her hermeneutic of suspicion is both welcome and an example of serious wrestling with the Bible. Others may wrestle with other sections, such as African-Americans with the endorsements of slavery, or pacifists with the Divine call to arms in much of the Old Testament. We cannot ignore, or write or read out, those portions of the Bible we find lacking in ethical or moral character. We have to accept them as part of the Bible, and at the same time be willing to insist they are not, or cannot, be normative for contemporary Christians.
I find it fascinating that I was recently told that only a literal reading of the Bible is acceptable, and as it is hradly conducive to understanding our contemporary life, should be discarded. I was told this by someone who was not a Christian. At the same time, Neil comes here, throws Bible quotes around willy-nilly, claiming that doing so proves one or another point he is trying to make. Such is, to me, a misuse or misunderstanding of the Bible and its uses, and in both cases insists for its promotion on what I tend to think of as magical thinking. In both cases, there is the assumption that something inside Scripture tends to commend it to us. For me, however, the Bible is authoritative only because the Church commends it to us as a general guide rather than because there is some property within the letters of the page that provide spiritual sustenance. I accept the idea that what inspiration Scripture provides comes from God in the Person of the Holy Spirit, but even that is qualified to the point that I believe God gave us brains and minds to wrestle, Jacob-like, with the God who loves us. If God minded, we would be different creatures. If God wanted abject obeisance, without question, without failure, without the possibility of growth, creation would have ceased with the angels.
My Scriptural guides for my own faith are, in general, the Hebrew prophets and certain lines of St. Paul. Specifically, I like Micah's declaration of LORD's requirements - to love kindness, pursue justice, and walk humbly with God. I also accept what St. Paul called "the fruits of the Spirit" - "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, fidelity, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law." (Galatians 5:22-23, REB) I see nothing here that warrants Neil's insistence that we come to some sort of artificial agreement on "sound doctrine". Indeed, I find it silly to insist on such a thing, because the past two millennia of Christian history have been an uniterrupted argument on what makes up Christian doctrine, with mutual anathemas and excommunications, and the splintering of the Body of Christ on issues of such little worth as to appear nonsensical to many. The overriding concern, to me, of the teachings of Jesus and the demands of Christian faith, is of mutual support in the work of loving and working in the world. "Salvation" as a metaphysical or eschatological concept is the work of God, achieved by Jesus on the cross. The final allocation of this decision is God's alone, and I leave the judging of such finality to that time and place, if such there will be. In the meantime, between the times as it is known (the time of Jesus and the final eschatological time-that-is-no-time), we are to live and love together for the sake of a world broken and hurting. To that end, our lives should be those of dedicated service to others on the model of Jesus, willing to go to the farthest extreme in the pursuit of healing and deliverance.
I do not believe that it is necessary to start and end all conversations with a variety of Bible verses. I do believe that, should a verse be pertinent, it is necessary to employ it, as long as qualifications, a relationship to some wider context is provided, and the satisfaction that it is only the beginning of Wisdom, rather than a syllogism in some argument. The Bible is a wealth for those who desire to seek a deeper understanding; it is also troubling, confounding, not infrequently self-contradictory and exasperating - but this does not render it useless if one approaches it in faith, and with the full knowledge of its short-comings clearly in mind.
As a note to those who might note a bit of hypocrisy in quoting Galatians even as I announce that I have little patience for certain activities that cause emotional turmoil and exasperation. I can only answer these critics by stating that I am on my way to perfection; I haven't reached it yet.
Virtual Tin Cup
