Is the Bible Authoritative? Part Two
In the Eye of the Beholder
If you missed part one of this series, click here to read that first.
Last week we began this conversation by exploring the idea of biblical authority that is present among many Christians. As a reminder, that view sees the Bible as the inerrant and infallible Word of God which, as a result, is the full and final authority on all matters of faith and practice.
The TLDR: The Bible, because of where and Who it comes from (God), does our thinking and deciding for us.
The problems with this are myriad, but let me highlight three specific issues.
Even a cursory glance at the Bible reveals it do be, not the inerrant and infallible work of one source, but a complex library of many voices, perspectives, and ideas. Some would say that the Bible is filled with contradictions, but I don’t like that language because it assumes the perspective on inerrancy. No one walks into a public library and declares it to be useless because there are books that disagree with one another in the card catalogue. We expect different authors in different contexts and times to offer different perspectives, don’t we? I prefer to see the incongruencies of Scripture as conversations between our spiritual ancestors who wrote these texts. They are there, and they are important for us to recognize and wrestle with.
Further, as I mentioned in the previous installment of this series, the Bible must be interpreted. It is unavoidable. Just the other day I happened upon a social media post that read as follows: “The Bible is not up for interpretation.” This is wildly misinformed. It’s naive at best, and duplicitous at worst. The very moment we read a text and start talking about what it means, we are interpreting the Bible. So, whose interpretation is the right one? The inerrant, infallible one? Which of the more than 40,000 denominations has it correct? Usually, it’s the perspective of the person claiming such things that is privileged.
Finally, consigning all of our decision-making to the Bible is an abdication of responsibility.1 The Bible doesn’t offer a single vision, but differing ones, and that requires our participation and deciding. Is it better to beat swords into plowshares or plowshares into swords? Both visions are biblical, in that they are found in Scripture.2 We must play our own role, in company with the Spirit and community, to make decisions about what Scripture means and how we apply, or even reject, it’s visions for the world.
All this being considered, can the Bible still be authoritative for someone who doesn’t view it as the inerrant, infallible Word of God? I think so, but the source of the authority does shift.
If Scripture has authority it is not because it is inherent to Scripture itself, but because people give the Bible authority in their lives.
The authority of Scripture, the role of the Bible, is in the eye of the beholder. Here’s what I mean, practically. If a person or community decides that the Bible is a source of authority for how they think and show up in the world, then the Bible plays that role. For others, if Scripture is not viewed as an authority, then it isn’t. This is why Christians quoting Scripture at people who disagree with their interpretation is such a frustrating adventure in missing the point. You can quote verses at someone all day long, but if they don’t share your view and understanding of Scripture, then it makes no real meaningful difference, except for one that is potentially negative.
This is also true for intra-Christian dialogue. When someone quotes a passage that they’ve interpreted as being against women in pastoral ministry or that condemns the LGBTQ+ community, those references do not change my perspective one bit. I am well aware of those texts, and I’ve spent considerable time and effort to understand them in their context. But, as someone who rejects inerrancy and univocality (the idea that the Bible speaks with “one voice” on issues), I am comfortable with looking at a text and saying, “Yes, this does seem to say women should be silent in the church, but I disagree.” That is not only permissible, it’s part of our responsibility.
By the way, if someone chooses to make passages like 1 Timothy 2:11-12 that commands the silence of women in the church normative for their faith and practice, they are also rejecting other texts that affirm the calling and empowering of women to lead. Texts like Galatians 3:28, and many other references in both the authentic letters of Paul and the Gospels, dismantle the old hierarchies that gave power to certain groups over others.
I love the Bible. It looms large in my life. A friend of mine once said to me that she thinks “in Bible,” and I immediately resonated with that idea. In that way, the Bible is authoritative for me, in both my life and my ministry. But that also means I have a responsibility to engage the text in context, and to be honest about why I am privileging certain passages over others. We all do that. We all cherry-pick, and it’s important for us to name that and be honest about what leads us to give certain passages more of an influence and voice over our thinking and lives.
Next week we will wrap up by talking about this “Sacred Art of Cherry-Picking.”
This reminds me of this scene from The Office.
See Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3, and Joel 3:10.