You've got to love cheeky comments like this one:
Now what? What do we do with the Bible? If parts may be wrong, how do we determine which parts? What use does it have in our Christian lives? Or should we just stick it under the coffee table to prop up the broken leg?
In conclusion to my series on understanding scripture, I would like to affirm what I believe about the collection of writings we call the Bible:
- I believe that the traditional Protestant canon of scripture comprises the best representation of the historic faith, extending from before Abraham's time all the way up to key events in the life of the early Christian church. It is this canon that I refer to when I discuss "the Bible."
- I believe that the Bible was inspired by God and that he has somehow influenced the development of its texts over the course of history.
- I believe that our interpretation of the Bible must include an understanding of the context in which they were written. This must include an understanding of historical methods for religious discourse.
- I believe that our hermeneutic can be informed by the practices of early Jewish and Christian theologians (i.e. Paul's usage of Old Testament texts and midrashic methodologies).
- I believe that the Bible was written, edited, and compiled so that the people of God would have a witness to the historic faith of those who have followed Him.
- I believe that the story of God is still being written today. The original texts are invaluable in helping us to understand that ongoing story, but God continues to reveal himself just as he has in ages past.
- I believe that theological reflection must hold the Bible in tension with tradition, reason, and experience.
- I believe that the Holy Spirit guides us "into all truth." (see John 16:13) I believe that this guidance extends beyond the non-exhaustive pages of the Bible.
- I believe that the Bible is best interpreted and "lived out" from within the context of Christian community.
I am going to consider this a work in progress and would definitely welcome any comments about what I should add, subtract, clarify, etc. Thanks in advance for your help!
********************
Links to the rest of this series: Understanding Scripture, Jesus and the Old Testament, Prophecy, What Counts as Scripture?, Fuller's Statement of Beliefs, How Was Scripture Written?, The LXX, What If?, Conclusions
Cheeky? I think that's a new one.
Posted by: deborah | June 27, 2006 at 05:12 PM
It' British. It means "having or showing cheek" according to Merriam-Webster OnLine.
Posted by: Bill | June 27, 2006 at 05:21 PM
No, I meant something new that I've been called.
Posted by: deborah | June 27, 2006 at 05:31 PM
Ahhhh...
Posted by: Bill | June 27, 2006 at 05:36 PM
Just like Thomas the Tank Engine!
You can see how I spend my days :)
Posted by: Lauraconk | June 27, 2006 at 05:53 PM
Thomas Rules! Lauraconk - who do you prefer as the narrarator? I have a dvd with George Carlin. It's weird, I keep waiting for him to go into one of his routines.
Posted by: deborah | June 27, 2006 at 06:05 PM
Talk about imaginary trains on your own blog. ;-)
Posted by: Bill | June 27, 2006 at 10:45 PM
NO... we'll discuss them here!
I think I like the more recent guy whose name I don't know.
I can't stand when Alec Baldwin does is... he irks me. Drew always makes me watch "Thomas and the Magic Railroad" where Alec is actually IN the movie... agh.
So, Beej... your canon. What does that mean for the parts well before Abraham and after the early church?? I'm so not sure I want the answer.... but since you didn't say from creation to Revelation....I guess I'm wondering why they seem to be eliminated ? Is that true?
Posted by: Lauraconk | June 28, 2006 at 06:46 AM
And hehem... who is to say exactly that Thomas is IMAGINARY?? I've ridden on him, touched him even. While he didn't speak to me and I found it personally pretty disappointing............. he is REAL! Any self-respecting man who believes in an Easter chicken should have no problem believing in a talking train :)
Posted by: Lauraconk | June 28, 2006 at 06:49 AM
lol...
To answer your question, I think that Abraham's story is pivotal as a beginning to the story of God's people. I look at him is an historical figure who is possibly more "historical" than the persons named before him. I'm not trying to make a definitive statement about that, however. Perhaps I should change that part.
As for the "early church" part of the statement, that is meant to describe the books of the New Testament from Acts onward. I believe that even the book of Revelation was written for the churches of its day and has application to 1st century events (i.e. the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD).
Posted by: Bill | June 28, 2006 at 12:30 PM
Oh... so then the 4 gospels... ? I'm just tryin to understand.
Posted by: Lauraconk | June 28, 2006 at 02:20 PM
I just assumed they were included in the middle. In other words, I was saying that the "bookends" of biblical history are "from before Abraham's time" and "the accounts of the early Christian church." .That includes everything in the middle. :-)
I was basically just saying that the Bible is our best resource in understanding the history behind our faith. I think as you get further back in time before Abraham (Genesis 1-11), the accounts are less "historical" in the literal sense. That doesn't make them unimportant theologically, however.
Posted by: Bill | June 28, 2006 at 03:08 PM
Well, why didn't you just say that in the first place? ;-)
Posted by: ken | June 28, 2006 at 03:29 PM