More on the place of Scripture in HLC

I've been thinking some more about the importance of scripture (the word we tend to use as a synonym for “the Bible.”) I was taught that scripture was “inspired” – that is to say that the presence of the spirit of God in it endows it with divine authority. Like so much of what I learned in childhood, I simply accepted the centrality of the Bible (or Holy Scripture) as a given. As I matured in understanding and became more educated, I began to question this seemingly arbitrary elevation of the Bible above all other writings. My more conservative colleagues reminded me of this line in the New Testament (2 Timothy: 3: 16-17):

“All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.” (NRSV)

For many people, that statement is reason enough to keep the Bible in its exalted position. When I studied New Testament Greek, however, I discovered that line to be ambiguous. It could mean either the above, or it could be translated as:

“Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.” (ASV)

Given this second translation, it is unclear what “scripture” (or writing) then does invoke, if anything. And that question, in turn, leads to some even thornier ones. Does a written work need to be endowed with divine authority to be useful in worship and religious education? Does there need to be an absolute reference point against which all other teaching must be measured? And, is there a value or a purpose in discerning the level of “inspiration” in any recorded idea?

These questions tend to boggle the religious mind, so it becomes tempting to answer them in the most superficial manner: from one side, that the Bible is God's authoritative word, or, from the other, that the Bible is an old, probably superstitious, and certainly outdated document.

Some modern writers are throwing the whole notion of God onto the refuse pile of outdated superstition. So, does Healthy Liberal Christianity have a useful perspective to add to the controversy? Is it possible to find spiritually nourishing values in the Bible without turning it into the manifesto for a repressive church or a repressive God?

I think such a Biblical view is not only possible but very useful for people of faith. Again even with a new perspective, we must take care not to oversimplify. If we think of the Bible as a kind of history, it does not work to see it merely as a history of events. Already, the archaeological record calls into serious question the historical accuracy of the events described there.

I submit to you, though, that the Bible has even greater value as a kind of spiritual history. This historical perspective allows us to see the spiritual development of human understanding and experience. The approach highlights the developing relationship between human consciousness and a spiritual/divine reality (sometimes called God) that is always more comprehensive than consciousness can embrace. Such an approach inoculates against both religious fundamentalism and scientism. It invites a broadening of approach that brings these historically inimical perspectives together. In this third way, scientific discovery and religious language and belief can continue to challenge and inform one another.

Of course, each perspective must make a sacrifice for this approach to be effective. Each must give up the campaign to prove that the “other side” is wrong. This is no small sacrifice. Still, the greatest value in any sacrifice is that it makes room, creates space, if you will, for new growth, new understanding, increased cooperation, improved relationship, and more. This describes Healthy Liberal Christianity at its best.