Ship of Fools: Why is Biblical Authority Not a Bigger Deal?

Thread: Why is Biblical Authority Not a Bigger Deal? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030800

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

I was raised an Evangelical and have attended a variety of Evangelical churches of different denominations and flavours. One of, if not the, key distinguishing factors is the weight put on the authority of the Bible. Which will usually involve some form of "inerrancy" (often defined to avoid confusion with literalism, which IME almost no-one believes in).

This obviously leads to a lot of discussion about "What the Bible says about..." and there are debates and arguments over interpretations, over meanings of words in the original languages, of balancing one passage against another, and so on - but the agreed premise is that once we've discerned "What the Bible says" we should treat it as Truth, to be trusted, and followed. Which can lead people to do and say things they wouldn't otherwise do. Whether that's discriminate against someone over their sex or sexuality, or give something up, or spend time or resources in ways they wouldn't otherwise. In other words they allow this Truth to mould their behaviour, they put a lot of weight on it. And if it truly is what they deem it to be, God speaking, then that's not unreasonable.

So this being the case my question is this - how come we don't hear much much more about this foundational issue? How come I've grown up in these churches and been around them all my life and yet the idea of thoroughly investigating the basis of claims to the Bible being this source of such massive authority is something that maybe a few keen types might read a book on? How come it's not Day 1, Lesson 1 for pretty much everyone? "Here's why the Bible can be trusted, now go read it and apply it"

I mean yes, there may have been a brief high-level overview at some point. Often it's a topic that comes up in evangelism and so may be dealt with in a talk or discussion related to that. But certainly my experience was that if someone wasn't asking those questions then it was a can of worms the Christian evangeliser would be happy not to open.

Maybe my experience was unusual but I don't think so. And I'm not saying nobody talked about this or looked at it, but it was never as front and centre and you'd expect.

What do you think? Shouldn't we make a bigger deal out of why we believe what we believe about the Bible?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I know that most evangelicals will have had a lot of experience of courses, books, sermons and other guidance on "how to read the Bible". Once you say "we don't take it literally, because that would be daft" then you have to really face the questions of how, then, do you work out what the Bible says.

I don't see how such "how to read the Bible" material can't address more fundamental questions. Starting off with "why read the Bible at all?" and working through other questions like what does it mean for the Bible to be authoritative? Authority over what? How does that authority relate to other sources of authority? What is meant by 'inerrant' or 'infallible'?

Now, those questions may not be addressed explicitely, but any decent treatment of how to read and interpret the Bible has to have them addressed in some way.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I'm guessing that a big part of why you don't hear more on the subject is that the potential presents don't feel up to it. I mean, this is a subject that can stretch up to and including textual scholarship, issues of history and culture, etc. etc. I suspect most laypeople, and not a few clergy, think it's beyond them--and don't want to take the time to mug it up.

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

Well, IMHO problem one is that the Bible isn't a book and so isn't completely internally consistent. It's far far less internally consistent than say the Quran. So it's hard to follow all the 'rules' without some so-called cherry picking.

Problem two is that the people IN the book do the above, Peter for example deciding that the Jewish Christians don't have to eat Kosher anymore after a revelation which was dead set against what the Bible says Jewish people should do. He had to have done that before people wrote it down and made it Holy Scripture.

Problem three is that IMHO anyway, we're all relativists on some level and absolute rules and declarations of the sort people are fond of saying the Bible contains don't suit our species very well. So we read it in a flexible, non-literal way to allow compassion and inspiration to guide us too. That makes it hard to make a big deal about AUTHORITY beyond some very basic principles.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Well, IMHO problem one is that the Bible isn't a book and so isn't completely internally consistent. It's far far less internally consistent than say the Quran. So it's hard to follow all the 'rules' without some so-called cherry picking.

Problem two is that the people IN the book do the above, Peter for example deciding that the Jewish Christians don't have to eat Kosher anymore after a revelation which was dead set against what the Bible says Jewish people should do. He had to have done that before people wrote it down and made it Holy Scripture.

Problem three is that IMHO anyway, we're all relativists on some level and absolute rules and declarations of the sort people are fond of saying the Bible contains don't suit our species very well. So we read it in a flexible, non-literal way to allow compassion and inspiration to guide us too. That makes it hard to make a big deal about AUTHORITY beyond some very basic principles.

Peter's vision was nothing to do with food, but gentile Christians not having to be circumcised. Christians still followed some level of diet restriction, given Paul's comments on not eating blood.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

In accepting Biblical authority, Evangelicals are essentially dispensationalist - there was a period when the Apostles were in receipt of divine revelation recorded in the New Testament scriptures that allowed them to make novel reinterpretations of the Old Testament scriptures. But, that direct divine revelation is no longer given and so we are not authorised to create novel reinterpretations and produce new scriptures. Which is, of course, exactly why the charismatic movement has been enormously contraversial in evangelicalism.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Peter's vision was nothing to do with food, but gentile Christians not having to be circumcised.

I understand it to be not either-or but both-and. God has made all foods clean and we are not to treat Gentiles as unclean.

quote:
Christians still followed some level of diet restriction, given Paul's comments on not eating blood.

Though the main guideline in the New Testament appears to be charity toward others, even if meat has been sacrificed to an idol, rather than the food itself. In any case, we don't seem to be under the restriction even of eating blood now, so I don't know if some council of bishops decided that early on or whatnot, but I think one can enjoy blood pudding without any concern for Divine displeasure.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

There are or were- I have found to my great surprise- people on this Ship who would disagree with you about the permissibility of eating blood pudding. I had never come across such view s before- rather as I had never previously come across people who believed that Christ's parables must be reports of real events because 'Jesus wouldn't tell a lie'.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm guessing that a big part of why you don't hear more on the subject is that the potential presents don't feel up to it. I mean, this is a subject that can stretch up to and including textual scholarship, issues of history and culture, etc. etc. I suspect most laypeople, and not a few clergy, think it's beyond them--and don't want to take the time to mug it up.

I completely understand that. I am/was one of them.

I guess the question is not simply, "Why haven't we looked into this?" but "Why, given that we haven't, are we willing to give it such weight?" I mean many of those same people who baulk at the work involved in this, will still happily pronounce on a wide range of subjects, make significant life-altering decisions, tell others what they should or shouldn't be doing - all based on "what the Bible says".

It's that disconnect that interests me.

And since I've owned up to being one, here's my personal answer to why* - I suppose it's like the attitude a lot of us have to science/technology. We don't personally know much about electrons or charge or whatever but we're happy to trust that someone somewhere does, and we're happy that the lights come on when we flick a switch, or that our phones work.

So I was happy to accept that someone somewhere had looked into this and I just trusted that the Bible could be trusted. And what amazes me about that now is that there were things I believed (and acted on) reluctantly because I thought that's what the Bible said, and only because of that. Things that went against my natural instincts and reasoning. But that somehow I didn't think or want to examine the basis of all this.

But that was a long time ago now and it's harder and harder to remember and relate to that kind of thinking.

(*I didn't immediately give this in the OP because I've found in the past that asking a question then answering it yourself doesn't encourage discussion)

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Well, trusting in authority--in any field--is a normal feature of human life. We can't all become experts in every field. The trick, of course, is to choose your experts wisely.

And there is some grunt work that people should normally do for themselves. In the case of the Bible, I think they ought at least read it for themselves before deciding to go around and lecture others on the contents, meaning, etc. etc. Which is why I get remarkably testy when I come across seminarians who haven't read through the Bible even once and show no signs of planning to amend that.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
How come I've grown up in these churches and been around them all my life and yet the idea of thoroughly investigating the basis of claims to the Bible being this source of such massive authority is something that maybe a few keen types might read a book on? How come it's not Day 1, Lesson 1 for pretty much everyone?

I would imagine that evangelical churches by their nature attract people who don't particularly want to go down that critical route. I suppose there are various sociological and psychological reasons for that.

However, some churches engage to a such an extent that they cease being evangelical. There are plenty of ex-evangelical denominations and congregations, and Christians who want to put the biblical texts under heavy analysis now have several options outside of evangelicalism.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
How come I've grown up in these churches and been around them all my life and yet the idea of thoroughly investigating the basis of claims to the Bible being this source of such massive authority is something that maybe a few keen types might read a book on? How come it's not Day 1, Lesson 1 for pretty much everyone?
I would imagine that evangelical churches by their nature attract people who don't particularly want to go down that critical route. I suppose there are various sociological and psychological reasons for that.

However, some churches engage to a such an extent that they cease being evangelical. There are plenty of ex-evangelical denominations and congregations, and Christians who want to put the biblical texts under heavy analysis now have several options outside of evangelicalism.

Er...I belong to conservative evangelical circles and have sat through umpteen "why we believe the Bible is authoritative" talks, including consideration of different types of criticism. I'm amazed Paul hasn't experienced that TBH.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

(sorry for the blood pudding tangent everyone - for the record I happily eat it, but I am not a Biblical inerrantist)

I am with Leprechaun - maybe it's just the particular evangelical churches I was in, but this was the norm for me. It's the basis of a lot of evangelical apologetics. IME it's the conservative/Reformed/Calvinist evangelicals who really engage with this.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Though I don't recall "umpteen" talks explicitly on why the Bible is authoritative, as I said my experience is that there were plenty of talks/courses on how to interpret the Bible which always contained some consideration of why read the Bible in the first place - ie: why is it authoritative.

Though I should admit there were times when the reasons presented for accepting the Bible to be authoritative were complete bollocks. But the OP question was about the existence, not quality, of such teaching.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Paul says there's

quote:

a lot of discussion about "What the Bible says about..." and there are debates and arguments over interpretations, over meanings of words in the original languages, of balancing one passage against another, and so on - but the agreed premise is that once we've discerned "What the Bible says" we should treat it as Truth, to be trusted, and followed. [...]

So this being the case my question is this - how come we don't hear much much more about this foundational issue? How come I've grown up in these churches and been around them all my life and yet the idea of thoroughly investigating the basis of claims to the Bible being this source of such massive authority is something that maybe a few keen types might read a book on? How come it's not Day 1, Lesson 1 for pretty much everyone? "Here's why the Bible can be trusted, now go read it and apply it"

I think the point is that although the churches discuss what the Bible teaches about various points, the aim is to shore up the beliefs and teachings that the churches already hold. There's little sense of objectively trying to establish the authority of the Bible as a fundamental goal. (Of course, if one aims to be objective then the outcome might serve to undermine the text and the church's teachings on some things, which presumably isn't what conservative evangelicals really want to find themselves doing....)

TBF, the non-evangelical mainstream churches don't normally discuss this kind of basic question too much at the congregational level, and it remains true that the laity are rarely encouraged to read biblical criticism; churches that encourage this are rare, I think. But in the mainstream churches there is a broad acceptance of questioning which doesn't depend on the Bible being 'authoritative' as such.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Er...I belong to conservative evangelical circles and have sat through umpteen "why we believe the Bible is authoritative" talks, including consideration of different types of criticism. I'm amazed Paul hasn't experienced that TBH.

I've experienced a few, but they've mostly been fairly superficial. Diving deeper was something available to those who wanted to, but not heavily promoted.

Compare that to the number of sermons I've heard on the Cross, or sex outside marriage, or tithing, or whether or not women in leadership is right (both sides).

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though I should admit there were times when the reasons presented for accepting the Bible to be authoritative were complete bollocks.

Yes or just superficial. Good as far as they go. Which is perhaps far enough to leave the impression the issue's been dealt with when really maybe not?

quote:
But the OP question was about the existence, not quality, of such teaching.

Actually, it was about the relative importance given to the topic given that it's fundamental to so much else.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

I think the point is that although the churches discuss what the Bible teaches about various points, the aim is to shore up the beliefs and teachings that the churches already hold. There's little sense of objectively trying to establish the authority of the Bible as a fundamental goal. (Of course, if one aims to be objective then the outcome might serve to undermine the text and the church's teachings on some things, which presumably isn't what conservative evangelicals really want to find themselves doing....)

True but there's also evangelism right? So evangelicals would expect that this something that would come up with non-Christians and that they would have to have an answer for?

So as much as on the one hand they might not want to turn over any rocks re: their own faith, they also want to be able to convince others.

And again, my experience of this was there was some effort put into apologetics, with the Bible being one issue within that, but not as much as you'd expect. Often in practice, apologetics were there in order to answer people's question enough so that they stuck around longer to listen, learn, experience, make friends - "belonging before believing" etc. Again just my impressions, experience but I don't think we expected apologetics to win people out-right, but to keep them around to hear the gospel itself.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

As you imply, I don't think the majority of churches, evangelical or otherwise, aim to make converts by means of appeals to biblical authority or apologetics.

Such an approach might appeal to some people, but maybe not to the majority of potential converts. Perhaps it might be more successful for the mainstream, 'rational' churches than for the charismatic and Pentecostal evangelicals whose focus is more on 'heart religion'.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

I think there's the social taboo factor as well. I agree that people within Evangelicalism talk about the authority of the Bible - quite a bit. But the discussion is usually within a socially-accepted framework, and to question the system of theology is taboo. Which means that questioning whether "Word of God" is the best title for scripture (even if you're arguing from Scripture), talking about Deuterocanonicals too much, talking about the history of the formation of the canon, and even exploring contradiction and disagreement within Scripture doesn't happen.

The Biblical Authority 'talk' is often at a high conceptual level ("this is what we believe about the bible, and why", or "this is what the bible says about itself"). Exploring the detailed outworking of this (like the examples in my first paragraph) doesn't happen so much. IMO, this is because the conservative evangelical biblical paradigm itself is somewhat flawed (whose isn't?), and doesn't work out in practice. So, it's wonderful in theory, but actually apply it to Scripture and History, and you hit some rocks.

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

IMO, the issue with Biblical Authority always comes down to who gets to say "this is what this means". In something like the Roman Catholic Church, that's easy--it's the Pope and his various congregations. In larger and more hierarchical protestant denominations (even ones that devolve some authority down to the congregation like Presbyterians) there is an official body that makes such decisions. When you start getting out into the evangelical churches though, it gets messy as many are independent with a pastor or elder who sets that direction. And that can lead to a lot of problems.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

If you want to remain evangelical yet also explore the Bible in this way perhaps the best way to do so is to become part of or to start up an ecumenical discussion group in your community.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

My experience seems closer to that of Pomona, Leprechaun and Alan Cresswell.

I have mostly attended evangelical churches, although not hugely conservative ones. We have had sermon series on "the Bible" and the nature of Biblical Authority; we have had one-off sermons; we've had asides in sermons on other topics; we've had specific short-courses outside of the Sunday services; we've had home group studies etc. etc.

In fact, I would say it has come up more often, both directly and indirectly, than issues around sexuality, marriage, singleness etc.

People are encouraged to research, study and question. People are introduced to the concepts of hermeneutics and why the 'plain meaning' may not be as plain as we think. A lot of the preachers over the years have liked nothing more than someone coming up to them and saying "When you said X, where are you getting that from, because my reading of Y leads me to think Z?" and then having a sensible discussion about it.

Maybe my church(es) have been atypical. Or maybe they're the wrong kind of evangelical for the context of the OP - I certainly regularly wince at some of the stuff in e.g. the letters page of Christianity, in terms of rigid views expressed without any reflection.

None of which is to say that everyone who attends is a great textual critic and Biblical scholar. Far from it. Most of us are lazy, and happy to take what we hear at face value as long as it doesn't clash too much with expectation (or ignore it if we don't like it [Biased]

). But the concepts are waved about and the opportunities to go deeper are presented.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
IMO, the issue with Biblical Authority always comes down to who gets to say "this is what this means". In something like the Roman Catholic Church, that's easy--it's the Pope and his various congregations. In larger and more hierarchical protestant denominations (even ones that devolve some authority down to the congregation like Presbyterians) there is an official body that makes such decisions. When you start getting out into the evangelical churches though, it gets messy as many are independent with a pastor or elder who sets that direction. And that can lead to a lot of problems.

I think there's a lot of truth in this. However it's not just about who gets to say what it means, it's on what basis.

So I know if I go to my Bible Study group and argue against homosexuality being a sin, for example, that if I use an argument based on the Bible (Romans 1 is about temple prostitution etc) then I will face an uphill struggle, but I'll get a decent hearing. If instead I base my argument on experiences I've heard or read from gay people, of ideas of natural justice, about how I can't see any harm done - then I may still get a hearing but the response will ultimately be "...but the Bible says..." and that will be seen as a trump card.

So I think, "Who gets to interpret" is a key question, but I think there is theoretically openness to other views if they are seen to be biblically-based.

Now I think what actually happens, and will continue to happen, is that people shift their views for other reasons and then find the biblical support they need for that. I strongly suspect that in 50 or 100 years the majority of evangelical churches will be gay-friendly, and that in those churches they'll have a well worked-out biblically-based exposition of why that's the case. And they'll have been driven to go back and re-read, re-interpret the Scriptures by the increasing discomfort of their members with the traditional position. A few groups will hold out and harden their line of course, but they'll no longer be part of the mainstream.

Snags - I'm glad to hear it's happening somewhere. The more I think about it the more I can remember some talks like that back in my student days - cos you know students like to talk about 'issues' [Roll Eyes]

- so maybe it's my recency bias showing.

As an aside, slightly related tangent, one of my FB friends posted a link to this series of talks answering the question "What Hurts Most?". I find it fascinating because it's clearly an attempt to reach out evangelistically to the community, and it contrasts with (what I think of as) the usual series of apologetics topics.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

My own experience has been similar to Snags, but there are a number of cross-cultural & historical distinctions in definitions of "evangelical". I suspect what is self-identified as "evangelical" in the US is more diverse than evangelicalism as its understood cross-pond.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:

Now I think what actually happens, and will continue to happen, is that people shift their views for other reasons and then find the biblical support they need for that. I strongly suspect that in 50 or 100 years the majority of evangelical churches will be gay-friendly, and that in those churches they'll have a well worked-out biblically-based exposition of why that's the case. And they'll have been driven to go back and re-read, re-interpret the Scriptures by the increasing discomfort of their members with the traditional position. A few groups will hold out and harden their line of course, but they'll no longer be part of the mainstream.

I'm sure you're right, but the problem is that what then becomes 'mainstream' no longer really identifies as 'evangelical' any more. This is what happened to most of the Methodists and the URC.

In 100 years' time these mainstream denominations will have probably served their purpose and no longer exist in the UK, but some of the Pentecostals and the charismatics will have 'de-traditionalised' their relationship with the Bible to such as extent that they'll take on the role of representing the post-evangelical mainstream. Church-sect theory in action? Quite possibly.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0