Holding the Bible Accountable to the Gospel
Here’s a sample of Brad R. Paxton’s article “Getting in Front of Jesus: The Politics of Progressive Christianity (Part 1)”:
In a pluralistic world, Christians must bear in mind that the Bible has both mediated grace and motivated genocide. Even as Christian ministers stand on sacred ground in pulpits preaching from the Bible, we must confess that the Bible is contested ground. As contested ground, the Bible is saturated by the tragic trail of tears from untold victims of scripture-sponsored violence.
Consequently, Christian leaders must construct notions of biblical authority that acknowledge the Bible’s ambiguous history. I offer such an approach in my book Preaching Paul (p. 23):
Many Christians assume that the Bible is supposed to hold us accountable to live the gospel. Is it not possible that God also expects us to hold the Bible accountable — accountable to being, through our interpretations of it, an ever more genuine witness to the gospel?
Slave castles, concentration camps, and hateful biblical interpretation marginalizing other religions, women, and gay and lesbian people place a question over the Bible: After religiously-motivated violence whose effects continue, what good news does the so-called “Good Book” contain?
Exclusive approaches to scripture that fail to address the oppressive impulses sponsored by, and contained in, scripture will be whitewashed tombs — antiseptic exteriors masking death and corruption below. On the other hand, nuanced, inclusive understandings of biblical authority openly admit that on certain matters of justice and compassion the Bible misbehaves and is not at its moral best. By forthrightly addressing the Bible’s moral miscues and its oppressive statements, progressive Christians can more honestly proclaim the tomb-breaking power of holy hope and inclusive love.
Is this how we explain the passages where God says to destroy whole villages — men, women, children, animals?
I have often feared the overly conservation politically Christian is connecting Jesus unfairly with what they want for America. This morning, reading Paxton’s article, I suddenly fear the same from the more liberal (politically) Christian. Our discipleship is with Jesus..much like husband and wife. Neither behind, in front of (perish the thought), but Hand in Hand.
Sandra – It is a thought-provoking article. But like you, I wasn’t crazy about the “out in front of Jesus” imagery. I know what he means: instead of obsessing on the past we need to carry the mission of Jesus into the future. But that doesn’t have to come at the expense of “I have decided to follow Jesus” language. I would prefer to say: We are following Jesus into the future as he continues to lead us.
Erin – Yes. I tried to get at these herem passages a bit in these two posts: http://preachermike.com/2009/01/02/the-dangerous-job-of-reading-the-ot and http://preachermike.com/2009/01/06/reading-the-ot-1.
Here are a few suggestions I had for reading the Old Testament:
When reading the Old Testament, we must remember these things:
1. This was the word of God first to the people of Israel — a word that came in their world with their language and culture.
2. This continues to be, the church has historically claimed, a word of God to us. It is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. The church voted “no!” to Marcion’s attempts in the 2nd century to rid God’s people of the Old Testament and the OT God.
3. These texts must be read by Christians through the lens of the gospel of Jesus Christ — the center of our faith. There is a good bit of reinterpretation of texts in the New Testament in light of the story of Jesus. Hermeneutics — learning to live in the world of the text through the wisdom of the church as indwelt by the Spirit of God — is the difficult task we always face.
4. The Old Testament is itself in the process of development. The instructions in the prophets (Amos, Micah, etc.) sound quite different from the often-vindictive words of, say, Numbers. These words came in violent cultures and they must be seen for the way they are interacting with those cultures — as well as (often) challenging them. A flat, systematic reading of the OT is difficult, then, because there is lively debate going on within the texts themselves.
5. There is an important difference between saying that the Old Testament is authoritative for God’s people and saying that it is inerrant.
Finally, these hopeful words from Walter Brueggemann:
“The central concerns of the Bible are not flat certitudes . . . but assurances that are characterized by risk and open mystery. The quality of certitude offered by the Bible is never that of a correct answer but rather of a trusted memory, a dynamic image, a restless journey, a faithful voice. Such assurances leave us restless and tentative in the relation, and always needing to decide afresh. Rather than closing out things in a settled resolution, they tend to open things out, always in fresh and deep question and urgen invitation. The central thrust of the Bible, then, is to raise new questions, to press exploration of new dimensions of fidelity, new spheres for trust. Such questions serve as invitations to bolder, richer faithfulness. Such questions also serve as critics exposing our easy resolution, our faithless posturing, and our self-deception. If the Bible is only a settled answer, it will not reach us seriously. But it is also an open question that presses and urges and invites. For that reason the faithful community is never fully comfortable with the Bible and never has finally exhausted its gifts or honored its claims.” (The Bible Makes Sense)
Brueggemann is a rock star. A political opponent of qb’s, but a rock star anyway. In fact, qb’s bucket list includes sitting down with him over some appropriately sized stein of liquid refreshment at some tavern in Atlanta.
That excerpt may well be the best summing-up of the exegetical transformation qb’s had underway for the five four years or so…gone are the days that qb simply assumes that the accounts of King David in I Samuel, for example, were simply disinterested observations by a neutral scribe!
qb
And, qb, that’s why we have continued to find ourselves as conversation partners for a while now — despite a tiny little difference or two.
Mike, I read the Paxton article. Some good, some not so good. I liked his emphasis on the radical character of Jesus and what he did/does; his emphasis on doing truth as opposed to merely believing truth; that evangelism vs. social concern is a phantom fork in the road.
I get what the author is saying and am even sympathetic with a lot of it. However, he seems in some ways to almost casting another “historical Jesus.” In the quest for the historical Jesus that some scholars have persued (from Reimarus to Crossan), the “historical Jesus” always seems to be nothing more than a projection of a Jesus who fits with the culture of the day.
As I read the article, which again I am sympathetic with, it seemed like Paxton was refashioning a Jesus that fits with his own political culture. Of course, to his credit, Evangelicals or the “Christian Right” have done the very same thing. And I suspect that we all do this to a certain extent, even when we are aware of the hazzards in doing such.
Thanks for sharing the article!
-Rex
I’ve never heard “follow me” interpreted as “get out in front of me”. Can’t you just hear the little guy on “Laugh-In” saying: “Very interesting…….but stupid!”
DU
We all deserve genocide from a holy God, yet here we are explaining it and ourselves away. This is the height of arrogance and pride.
“Who are you, O man?”
Outside of Christ, we are repugnant creatures in sin. We are enemies of God. We are by nature haters of God. It is by grace alone that anybody is saved in Christ.
Man thinks much too highly of himself. What do you or I deserve? Nothing but justice. What do we receive by grace in and through Christ? Mercy. This is why He came for the sick.
We will never understand the holiness, mercy, and grace of God until we realize that outside of Christ, Mother Theresa, Adolf Hitler, and each of us look the same to Him.
Christ is all we have. That is why we preach the Gospel. That is why we serve.
Well said, Jr.
An Army general was on Janet Parshall’s America this week and gave the “Jesus instructed his apostles to grab a sword” scripture as his basis for war. I dunno – can someone help me with that scripture? Thanks Mike.
In the end, God will judge us and our words. We will not be judging him and his words.
Mike, help me understand: Are you saying that the Bible is reliable, but parts of it (the gospels, for instance) are more reliable than others (parts of early Old Testament books, for example)?
Because God’s justice – shown, perhaps, in greater measure in those Old Testament books – is a part of His nature that is as necessary for us to appreciate (if not understand) as is His mercy – which is maybe displayed in greater measure in the New Testament.
But He’s the same God in both; and we’re not.
Where too many Christians have gone wrong with the idea of imitating God’s justice is that we/they think we’re as capable of dispensing it as He is; that somehow we are authorized to do so. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Nor does it mean that God no longer loves those who receive His discipline, whether it is those who deserve it … or His Son, in place of them. In place of us.
In his song “Angels Wish,” Steven Curtis Chapman wonders “… did He cry about the flood?”
I wonder if the flood was formed from His tears.
Mike,
You appear to recognize the development of religious thought over time within the Bible. What leads you to conclude that the Bible is, in fact, God working through the various cultures to speak to us instead of a merely human construction? I ask this because I am trying to figure this out for myself. I know it’s a complicated question that you likely couldn’t answer fully in a reply, but just pointing to some resources would be helpful.
DoOrDoNot – I appreciate so much your interest in pursuing this more. Yes, I certainly do recognize a kind of growth in scripture. Brian McLaren is getting at something when he discusses scripture as the “community library” — with some resources more valuable than others.
That’s not to minimize scripture (at least to me). It does, however, remove it from the scripture wars that drew lines in the sand over terms like “inerrant.”
So why do I think scripture is not merely a compendium of human thoughts? Let me be answer: part of it is a faith decision. My trust in Jesus leads me to the scriptures that he read and to the scriptures that witness about him — and were considered part of the canon by the community that followed him.
A valuable resource is N. T. Wrights: The Last Word: Scripture and the Authority of God — Getting Beyond the Bible Wars. He has been — along with Walter Brueggemann, Richard Hays, and others — a most valuable guide as I’ve thought through these issues.
DoOrDoNot: A great resource, in regards to canonicity (which goes well with your studies into the development of the texts we have today) is: “Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon” by Carson and Woodbridge. See particularly chapter 9 titled “The Biblical Canon” by David G. Dunbar, pages 299-360. It is a decent critical approach that takes you from OT through NT and how things came to be (and has 398 endnotes for researching pleasure). I have a pdf copy of that chapter if you are interested as well.
Happy reading.