It is a Saturday morning men’s bible study at a typical unnamed non denominational church in the high desert. This was a healthy time of sharing in which the discussion came around to the authority of scripture.
The focus was not on the academic and philosophical issues but we regular guy’s understanding of the everyday value of the Bible in our lives. One impertinent participant asked the pastor if there were not some differences that conflict with each other in the Bible. The pastor’s response was in the affirmative but
they were said to be minor and of little consequence.
Those few of us who are familiar with scripture know better, as does the pastor with his graduate degree. His response was not unexpected but to this respecter of the biblical record it was to some degree dishonest. Did the pastor want to avoid any questioning of divine script? Yes! If it had occurred, would such an honest discussion damage the usefulness of quickly quoting the Bible from the pulpit, as if such a quote should end all questions? Possibly but this particular pastor is not prone to such errors but an honest discussion there was not. A decision was made by this pastor that in true Nicholsonian style, “we (the laymen thus gathered) cannot handle the truth”.
Are there listener’s who would misuse such an honest discussion against the local pastor or the local church or the Bible or the faith as a whole? Surely, but these folk have a spiritual axe to grind and their pettiness can be deciphered by all. On second thought, I may be giving a little to much credit to the choir. The point being that regardless of the aftermath, honesty is the best policy, is it not? This voice can speak frankly because these words are from the bushes with nothing to lose.
There would seem to be two ways that believers read the bible. There are those believers who read the Bible with the eyes of faith and those who read with the blindness of faith. The non believer will find the Bible dull and be turned off. The legitimate seeker, asking real questions of the Bible, will be engaged toward a moment of faith and a viable connection to the realm (biblical kingdom) of the spirit of God. There is a danger in absolute statements but it always seems to happen this way. Was it not Jesus who told us without equivocation, “he who seeks finds (Matt. 7:8)”?
Reading the Bible with the blindness of faith is only for the ever immature believer. The Bible is a “totem” or a token of spirituality sitting on the coffee table. The real authority is what is said about the Bible. That methodology feeds our laziness. The assumption is that the Spirit has long quit giving revelation to the individual so we are to swallow whatever is told to us about God and his kingdom. The Bible becomes then a mere “proof text” for human traditions.
This was the predominate religious and spiritual atmosphere of the time of Jesus. Some would extend this laziness to our day in which the language of religion may have changed but our souls are being starved for relevancy.
The believer who reads the Bible with the eyes of faith never tires of digging for truth within it‘s pages. He or she will insist on an atmosphere where it is O.K. to ask any sincere question of God’s revelation to us. He or she will accept that the books were authored by human beings inspired by the Spirit of God. We sincere believers have chosen a number of ways to express this inspiration but with very little agreement.
Please allow a definition that works for me but in no way is definitive for others. “Not all the words of the Bible are perfect but all the words of the Bible have a God intended value”. Accept or reject this definition but regardless of one’s view of Scripture there can be no harm to asking this question of each passage. What is the God intended value?
G.Goslaw
