Advertisements

Is the Bible Reliable?

peterpaul                         The above picture is Paul and Peter arguing over their disagreements

Why is it important that the Bible is reliable is the second topic among the 8 churches in Fountain Hills Arizona. Last Sunday they all preached on this topic on in their opposition to progressive Christianity and the Fountains Methodist Church in particular. This blog post is written as one progressive Christian response to the claim. But before I do this, I have to admit, I’m uncertain what they mean by reliable.

For something to be reliable it has to be towards some end. And depending on your end you can make an evaluation.

Is the Bible a reliable source for scientific claims about the world? No. It can’t replace the scientific descriptions we have. The world is not 6000 years old. Is the Bible a reliable source of history? Sometimes. But I don’t know any scholars who think the birth narratives are history. In the conquest of Canaan, history and myth are mixed together. It’s not the easiest thing to sort out but the development of the historical critical method over the last few centuries has sought to address such questions.

Is the Bible reliable in its moral compass? That would presume that was the primary intent of the texts. But when you come across the conquest stories just like when you come across modern war stories, it’s hard to see what is laud worthy there. Of course there is moral genius in the Bible, look at the Old Testament prophets. Their condemnations of concentrated wealth and privilege remains highly relevant today.

But as a progressive Christian I can say that the Bible is a reliable account of the faith of Israel. It also is reliable in representing the diversity that is the early church. The fight between Paul and Peter, as indicated in Paul’s letter to the Galatians suggests to me that they did not want a uniform story. They wanted to share their views and when the text was compiled there was little interest in trying to present a single voice, but many voices. This is part of the reliability of the Bible that I embrace.

The Bible is reliable in presenting an alternative vision of the world. Where those without power are given a voice, from the slaves freed in Exodus, the prophets speaking for the poor and dispossessed, Jesus relating to everyone on the underside of the Roman empire, to the women who built the first century church. The Bible enacts out Mary’s Magnificat. And that gives me an account of God I find reliable.

Of course I don’t think that is what the 8 churches meant by reliable. I think they used this term because none of them relate to the Bible in the exact same way. They needed a broad vague word that can be taken in different directions so they could achieve unanimity on the topic. For instance, I bet the ELCA and PCUSA churches there do not believe the earth is 6000 years old. But I bet a number of the evangelical churches do. So they couldn’t use the term infallible or inerrant as a source of agreement.

While they may all believe in the physical resurrection and virgin birth, they probably don’t all agree whether Jonah was swallowed by a big fish or whether there is an end times. They may make different distinctions of what counts as reliability in the Biblical accounts. Which is fine. Progressive Christians do as well. But the topic is a disservice in that it pretends to take the Bible in a agreed upon way, when it clearly doesn’t.

Let me suggest that the differences are worth exploring. Progressive Christianity is able to embrace those differences. We don’t assume everyone will have the same take away from the texts. We don’t among ourselves, why would anyone else? The term Bible, means library, it’s a compilation of ideas, writings, over an extended period of time. Of course there is a diversity of ideas and ways of relating to the text.

Let me offer a few suggestions towards that end.

1) If you don’t have a theory about what you believe about the Bible, don’t worry about it. When you have to have a theory and defend it to the hilt than too often the text is often forced to fit the theory. So for instance, if you believe God cannot change and you come across a text where God changes, you can just let the text speak for itself. You don’t have to try to square it with your theory.

2) And yet it is helpful to have an overall sense of the purpose of the Bible for your faith community. For Augustine it was to increase love of God and love of neighbor. So when you come across a text that does not appear to do that, you can ask yourself whether the text fits the overall purpose of the Bible in your community.

I hope 1 and 2 don’t seem contradictory. The first is meant to understand the text in its own terms. The second is meant to develop ways of appropriating the text for yourself and your faith community. The move from 1 and 2 is the move from text to scripture, from understanding to application. But not every text in the Bible should be applied.

3) The Bible is the beginning of the story, not the end of the story. Some evangelicals and atheists assume that the Bible is the sole content of Christian faith. That the conversation stopped almost 2000 years ago. If so, we are limited indeed. For those of us who believe in a still speaking God, that is not possible.

The Bible becomes important in the many many conversations that have unfolded over the millennia as a result. That becomes a kind of inspiration.I found it helpful that in seminary, the Bible was placed under church history. It was placed along Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Schleiermacher, St. Theresa, Tillich and Rosemary Radford Reuther. It suggests that we might be a part of that same conversation that continues onward.

Dwight Welch is the pastor at the United Church of Norman, Oklahoma

Advertisements

Comments

  1. You have repeatedly referred to your view as “Progressive”. The word eludes to progress. Can you tell me, is there a goal to this progress and is there a final destination?

    • Dwight Welch says:

      I’d use the word liberal protestant but in our popular culture, the term people know is progressive Christian. I also used it because this series aims to preach against folks like myself and our views. The goal a more adequate and humanizing religious faith that can critically appropriate the resources of the Christian tradition to the problems of human life. The final destination? There isn’t anyone. As long as change and flux in human life, culture, and nature continues, there will always be need for adjustment and critical appropriation.

      • Ah, You are an evolutionary then?
        “What is truth?” Said Pontius Pilot, then he turned from Jesus without waiting for the reply. Christ had previously said of Himself,”I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me.”
        This narrow, fixed, albeit very unprogressive statement is absolute, unchanging and in terms of progress, THE final destination of all sincere seekers of truth.
        Please consider your current untenable stance.

        • Dwight Welch says:

          I do believe in evolution. I think truth is in reference to a question. In the case of religion, it’s what leads to life abundant,to the true, the good and the beautiful. I’m not sure what position I old that is not tenable?

        • Evolution is the theory that everything came from nothing and order came from chaos, and rationality came from random chance. Morality is then relative and logic is relative and cannot be trusted because it Is relative.
          Imagine trying to navigate a plane through clouds without fixed coordinates?
          Without absolutes you cannot know who you are, were you are, what you are, what you should be, or how to make true progress in life, liberty, and your ability to contribute to society and unity. Christ-like is that destination and Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
          These things are written that you may know…

      • Dwight, you are bringing out a special kind of troll. One of my favorite aspects of blogging!

  2. What a strange and inaccurate definition of evolution. It sort of explains your misunderstanding of all of these other concepts, I suppose.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: