Using the Bible

Understanding, using, and interpreting the Bible is going to be one of the big issues of the emerging church in the coming decades. This is a short piece I wrote as a letter to the editor of 'Missionary Church Today.' The letter was later published on the denominational website.

The topic of the recent edition of Missionary Church Today that dealt with biblical authority and especially the doctrine of inerrancy was of special interest to me. This is a crucial issue for those of us involved in cross-cultural ministry. In the decade I spent doing church planting among Palestinians, I noticed that Muslims have a very rigid and mechanical understanding of written revelation. Over the last five years I have lived with postmodern Europeans – a group much more difficult to reach than Muslims – and I have had to deal with the predominant view that truth is relative. The nature of divine revelation is a topic that must be addressed at both the theological and missiological level. It is good to see the Missionary Church tackling such subjects in its publication.

I share the concern of some of the contributors that students entering into seminary or Christian colleges have a low repository of biblical knowledge. However, the greater concern that I have is that students leaving these institutions are still unable to use the Bible as a tool for the kingdom. They may be able to teach the scriptures, but they often do so in such a way that merely targets the mind rather than transforming the heart. At worst, I have witnessed some with a high view of scripture use it as a tool to manipulate, control, or even wound others. The negative fallout I have seen from this has led me to believe that teaching inerrancy is secondary to teaching future ministers to use God’s word in the ways He intended. I do not believe that holding to a strict doctrine of inerrancy protects from spiritual deadness. Biblical malpractice not only results from teaching false doctrine, but also from neglecting to minister the truth in redemptive ways that respect the humanity of others.

The problem with the doctrine of inerrancy as it is currently taught in fundamentalist circles is that it appeals to the same methods and criteria that the liberals use to reject inerrancy.[i] Both evangelical fundamentalism and Protestant liberalism are often grounded in the worldview of Modernity and Enlightment thinking, at least in regards to biblical authority. Both appeal to human reason in support of their conclusions. The liberals may mockingly ask, “Do you really believe that a big fish swallowed some guy and then spit him out three days later?” The fundamentalists will quote urban legends about people who have been swallowed by fish only to be spit out alive and well (though partially digested!) as support that the story of Jonah is scientifically viable.[ii] Both appeal to rationalism to bolster their position. But rather than trying to defend the scriptures on the shaky grounds of Modernity, I would submit that the scriptures will prove themselves infallible when used as they were intended. So what factors should shape our approach and use of the scriptures? I suggest three.

First, our understanding of the scriptures must be within the context of our spirituality. The Fathers of the Eastern Church rightly emphasize that theologians are made in the prayer closet rather than the study. More in keeping with our own tradition, the Continental Pietists recognized that the ultimate goal of Bible study is spiritual formation.[iii] Unfortunately, few Bible colleges or seminaries offer courses on spirituality, though that is the main business of the church and the purpose of biblical revelation. The Bible must be studied from the heart and minister to the heart, and we must keep in mind that the goal is to cultivate a relationship with God.

Second, the Bible must be studied in the context of community. Most of the Bible was addressed to the people of God as community. Even those few books that were written to individuals quickly became community property. The nature of biblical revelation itself is that it is the record of God’s acts in history among His people. Interacting with the truth, therefore, needs to be a community activity. The tendency of fundamentalists has always been to separate themselves off from others in the effort to remain doctrinally and morally pure, but this puts them in the danger of living with serious biblical blind spots. We must not be like the unwise steward of Matthew 25 whose fear caused him to cut himself off from others and hide his resources. Defensive cultural walls will not protect us from compromise. Rather, it is passionate love for Jesus and his truth that will keep us on the straight and narrow (Psalm 119:165). Pastors, missionaries, and theologians must not only be able to debate issues of biblical importance in a public forum, but they must also be able to sit down with those on the other side of the fence to drink coffee and talk about their children. Do our seminaries teach future leaders how to do this? Do our denominations encourage this? Do we create room for spiritual growth and doctrinal development among our people, or do we foster a defensive or confrontational posture aimed at protecting our particular worldview?

Third, the Bible must always be understood in the context of mission. It is a tool of the Holy Spirit to facilitate God’s redemptive work in the world. The Bible must always be interpreted “on the move” as we seek to engage the world and be the people of God in the world. For example, we must be able to think about theological anthropology in the context of stem cell research and human sexuality. These are not merely academic or political issues, but issues pastors are going to face with real people who find themselves in real messes. Brian MacLaren likens this type of biblical exegesis to riding a bicycle. If you are standing still you will fall over. In order to balance correctly, you must be moving. Occasionally you will lean to the left, and occasionally to the right, but you must always be in motion.[iv] As scripture itself testifies, the purpose of God’s word is to make the man of God complete for every good work. The Bible must be interpreted in the context of promoting “good works” in the real world.

Latin American missiologist Samuel Escobar says that postmoderns will not be convinced of the Christian faith by our apologetics or morality. Rather, it is our spirituality and community that will demonstrate to them the reality of biblical truth.[v] Our focus as Christian leaders must not be merely to defend the Bible against its critics, but to study, believe, and obey the Bible as God’s tool for spiritual, communal, and missional formation. Unfortunately, while graduates of Bible colleges and seminaries have greatly improved their biblical knowledge, many are still not prepared to utilize the Bible for the kingdom purposes for which it was intended.

[i] I am indebted to Leslie Newbigin’s Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship (Grand Rapids: Eerdmann’s Publishing Company, 1995) for stimulating my thinking on this.
[ii] “Making History: The Modern Jonah,” Beyond the Broadcast: BBC Radio 4 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/beyond/factsheets/makhist_prog6d.shtml); and Edward B. Davis, “A Whale of a Tale: Fundamentalist Fish Stories,” Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 43:224-237 (1991), http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1991/PSCF12-91Davis.html.ori
[iii] Stanley Grenz, Revisioning Evangelical Theology: A Fresh Agenda for the 21st Century (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 112.
[iv] Brian MacLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 163.
[v] Samuel Escobar “The Global Scenario at the Turn of the Century,” Global Missiology for the 21st Century: The Iguassa Dialogue, ed. William Taylor (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2000), 45.