Should the Bible be an Idol?

One thing that often creates the largest divide between a fundamentalist and a non-fundamentalist Christian is how each respectively approaches the bible. The former, see the bible as an infallible book, written by God using men as passive conduits, superseding their humanness altogether, creating a perfect construct devoid of error or contradiction, mirroring the absolute perfection of God. The latter, see the book as an indispensable tool for faith and practice, but there is an understanding that men wrote scriptures about God, rather than God writing about Himself. There is the notion that the bible contains the word of God in numerous and variegated ways, but is not in its entirety, the word of God. 

I can relate to the fundamentalist position. It was something that was taught to me from a very early age and an assumption that permeated my time as a fundamentalist pastor. I can remember vividly making statements that essentially equated the Bible with God, with virtually no distinction between the two. In retrospect, I now realize that what I was doing was essentially making an idol out the bible and elevating it to a position that it was never intended to be in.  

Recently, I finished reading a book entitled, A Layman's Introduction to Religious Existentialism, by Eugene B. Borowitz. In the book, Borowitz introduces the reader to a number of famous religious thinkers, categorized as religious existentialist. Among them is the well known and prolific, Karl Barth. In the chapter dealing with Barth's existentialist thought, he addressed Barth's approach toward the Christian scriptures. The following is an excerpt from this description: 

"Similarly, Christianity is a faith in Christ, not in a book. It would have been easy for Barth to retreat into fundamentalism, to insist that the text of the Bible is the final standard of belief. There are many people in these changing, challenging times who put their trust in the words of scripture. For them, the one sure answer to the terrifying openness of freedom is a Biblical citation. But Barth cannot be tempted from his faith. Is the Bible superior to the Christ or is it, rather, the surest witness to him? To make a book, a text, words, even the Bible, man's ultimate authority is to put another sovereign in the place of the living God. The Christ must be sovereign over the holy books that proclaim him. This is not to deny the unique, indispensable, irreplaceable role of the Bible in the life of the Christian an in theological study.

There is no more immediate testimony to the Christ's acts and teachings. He who would know him must study the Bible as his chief source of information. But the Bible is the record of men testifying of God, not the record of God himself.

Barth is able to find an orthodoxy that is not a fundamentalism. He can utilize the results of modern Biblical study without being beguiled by its assumptions. For example, he is not disturbed that there are different reports of the crucifixion given in the Gospels. He is too honest to hide, too rational to deny, the data. But he does not lose his Christian faith because there are variations in the descriptions and emphases. His faith is not in the exactitude of the Biblical words, but in the person of Christ of whom these various reports speak. Fundamentalism can lead to so meticulous a wordmongering that Christian faith often seems to hang on the difference between an adverb and an adjective, a verb and a noun. The text, sacred as it may be, is not the Christ himself. Rather, the Christ is the norm for understanding and interpreting the New Testament books as well as the Scriptures that had preceded them." [pp. 57-8; emphasis added]

Over the years, I have often heard people make incredible claims regarding that bible. On the heels of these are unfortunate pronouncements: such as, "if there is a single contradiction in the Bible, then it is useless and untrue." This usually extends to the very character of God: "if something is found to be untrue then God is a liar and my faith is a lie." These are very scary alternatives!

I see the bible as a collection of writings, of divergent nature (narratives, history, poetry, etc), authored by human beings who were, at times, inspired and influenced by God. As such, I believe that the Christian scriptures contain God's word, his special revelation to man, and thus, is sacred and to be taken seriously by every Christian. We should approach the bible with the utmost respect and the with the understanding that it is a very important medium through which God has chosen to communicate to the world.

Raymond McAfee Brown sums this attitude up in a sermon entitled, "Mary and Martha, A Conundrum," based upon the text of Luke 10:38-42. This is an excerpt from his book, Reclaiming the Bible: Words for the Nineties; a collection of sermons he delivered at the First Presbyterian Church in Palo Alto, California, between 1990-93.

There are two extremely important statements that Brown makes here. One, the bible divulges God's word and plan, purposes, etc, in a unique way not found anywhere else (for the Christian). Second, he communicates the awesome adventure of discovery that this searching of scriptures affords the believer, but at the same time, it imposes a tremendous responsibility as well.

"We assert that in the Bible, God speaks a special kind of word to us that we don't find anywhere else [that sentence is very important to understand before you read further. Brown emphatically states from the onset that Christian scriptures reveal to us, in a special and unparalleled fashion, the word of God, and that revelation is exclusive to the Christian scriptures. There is no ambiguity in this statement.] And just as Jesus was a fully human being (whatever else he was), so the Bible is a fully human book (whatever else it is). This means that the Bible has a worldview molded by the Hebraic and Greek culture within which it was written. Its writers accept that culture without serious question, including a patriarchal point of view that takes male superiority for granted. Its writers do not know about universal human suffrage and would be utterly flabbergasted at the notion of a senator named Barbara Boxer.



Notice that this stress on the full humanity of Jesus, and on the book that tells about him, is a plus rather than a minus. It persuades us that God really takes us seriously in our here-and-nowness, by using that same here-and-nowness to communicate with us—through a human life and a human book.


The consequence of all this is that we are given an exciting and even dangerous kind of freedom in approaching the Bible and using it. [once again, Brown's emphasis here is extremely important to note] Not every verse or chapter or book is of equal importance. And within this account of God's confronting us through human writers, the insights of those human writers are always subject to question. They are not passive conduits through whom God directly dictates a script without errors. Sometimes they tell us that it is God's will that we slay every man, woman, and child of the enemy captured in battle (1 Sam 15:3). Sometimes they affirm that war is the ultimate obscenity and that we can never participate in it. Both themes are there, and we have to choose between them.


The writers also use instruments of the culture they are addressing, to communicate fully to that culture. To Greeks, the uniqueness of Jesus is suggested by the story of the virgin birth—a very common concept if you are a first-century Greek. But to first-century Jew, the uniqueness of Jesus is suggested by demonstrating how he fulfills Old Testament prophecy. If these images do not speak to us, it doesn't mean that the uniqueness of Jesus, to which they are pointing, goes down the tubes; it simply means that we have to find images in our own time and place that communicate uniqueness to us. God will use whatever means are at hand..." [p. 64; emphasis added]

One of the objections to this way of approaching scripture is that it is based solely upon subjective reasoning. This, I think, is a reasonable objection. One can easily refuse to recognize God's voice because it makes them feel uncomfortable or goes against what they want or like. Although, realistically, one can employ these tactics regardless of their appraisal of the Bible's nature. Here, however, Brown's injunction is all the more relevant and bears repeating: "we are given an exciting and even dangerous kind of freedom in approaching the Bible and using it."

One guide to help aid our understanding and recognition of God's voice within scripture is found in its historic traditional interpretation. We should give proper place and attention to how a given scripture has been interpreted and implemented within the collective community of faith. That does not necessarily mean that we are always beholden to agree, but we should deviate only with valid concerns and objective reasons.

Jose Miguez Bonino, writing a book on liberation theology entitled Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation, makes the following statement which is very relevant: 

"A Christian hermeneutics is unthinkable as a purely individual undertaking. It necessarily presupposes a "hermeneutical community." [p. 154]

While searching for God's voice within the scriptures can and should be a personal pursuit, it is validated within the community of faith. This serves to achieve a continuity and universality of truth. While God speaks to people in divergent situations, and the application of such may vary from time and place, it will always be consistent with the essence of revealed truth. 

Additionally, the matrix within which we discern God's voice in sacred writ is a yielded heart, a spirit of cooperation with the Holy Spirit; the Spirit which Christ said would lead us into all truth (John 16:13). Jesus said that we would be able to discern his doctrine and its authenticity by our desire to please and do His will. (John 7:17) This demands that we always approach scripture with an honest heart that is searching for the truth. As we are immersed in this matrix of human and divine cooperation, we will be challenged and stretch. The truth we perceive will normally contradict our natural inclinations, because his ways and thoughts are fundamentally different than ours. 

All this means that discerning God's voice is not a static endeavor, but rather a dynamic exchange between God and man. The scriptures are a physical medium wherein we find truth and can always trust that it will speak to us in relevant ways. It is a tool, a conduit of God's revelation to man. 

While in many ways it is a human book, an earthen vessel, it, like us, contains an excellent treasure. This treasure is compelling and mined only through the power of the Spirit. Its worth is not found in its internal agreement, whether or not its free from error, or perfect in every aspect. Its worth is found in the fact that in spite of its human element (which if objectively appraised, can be clearly be seen), it contains the heart of God's revelation to man. 

With all that said, it is nonetheless, a  book. A book that God intends to inform, validate, and empower us. But it is not a substitute for God, nor was it ever intended to be. This understanding will bring that dimension that Brown spoke of above, of an exciting freedom through which we can approach and enjoy the Holy Bible.