A critic of ‘fundamentalism’ writes as follows: “The Bible in fundamentalism
is comparable to the virgin Mary in Roman Catholicism: it is the
human visible symbol involved in salvation: as she through the immaculate
conception is free from the contagion of human imperfection, so
it has a kind of perfection and sublimity that makes it sacreligious
for us to analyze and criticize its seamless fabric”(1)
. I don’t totally agree with this, nor with the overall thesis of
the writer in the rest of his work. But there is a certain warning
for us here- although I don’t think our community has succumbed
to the excesses of the KJV-only Bible bashers. Yet we need to ask
ourselves how we use the concept of an inspired Bible. Do we use
‘the inspired infallible Bible’ to justify our tradition, certain
that the faith of our fathers is true merely because we append bracketed
quotations from the infallible Book to it? Rather we ought to be
using this amazing Book to question, analyze and re-check our beliefs.
Contrary to James Barr’s approach, I do believe that the Bible is
indeed “seamless”. Yet I sense that because we accept the Bible
as ultimately “seamless”, i.e. it is without contradiction from
God’s viewpoint, we can tend therefore to eagerly seek to own the
correct interpretation to every Bible verse, so that we can feel
there are no contradictions in the Bible. For me, there are apparent
contradictions, many gaps in my understanding, but these are my
problem, and they don’t impact my faith- they don’t affect my belief
and assertion that ultimately the Bible is not contradictory and
is indeed “seamless”. Yet I sense that for some of my brethren,
there is an earnest, urgent need to have explanations for any apparent
contradictions, of text or teaching, clearly explained away in carefully
written notes in their Bible margins- lest their belief in a seamless,
infallible Bible be made to look broken. I would argue that a belief
that the Bible is indeed inspired by God Almighty rather demands
that we accept that therefore and thereby, there will and must be
contradictions to our limited minds and understandings,
seeing we are reading Divine words and not human ones. Bible fundamentalism
as it is often understood doesn't seem to allow for this.
There is a certain psychology associated with all religious experience,
whether or not the experiences are valid or not. By this I mean that a
Catholic may experience some of the same feelings when they take the eucharist
as a true Christian does at the breaking of bread, or as a Hindu does
when they participate in a ritual. We must ensure that our belief in the
Bible as the inspired word of God isn’t merely part of a spiritual experience
which is just part of ‘mere religion’; the Bible becomes our ‘holy book’
just as the Koran is for a Moslem, and elicits the same basic psychological
reaction from us. For there is truth in the inspired Bible which far surpasses
any other book; putting it bluntly, the Bible is the only God-inspired
book around, and all other books which claim this are frauds. That said,
here are some points to beware of:
- Many people today want to believe that somewhere there is some one
book that is absolute truth; we too have those same basic instincts.
People almost want to believe in Bible fundamentalism. May it not be
that we see the Bible as merely the source of satisfaction for our credulous
appetite, just as people in other times or cultures have fixed upon
another such ‘holy book’.
- The fact we can put Bible verses in brackets after the statements
of our interpretations doesn’t mean that our views are inspired as the
Scriptures are. Belief in the inspired Scriptures can lead us to think
that our views are therefore inspired; this leads to an unhealthy lack
of self-criticism and complacency.
- The fact the Bible is inspired is the foundation clause of many statements
of faith. But an inspired Bible, nor our belief in this proposition,
will not in itself save us. The redemption that is in the blood of the
Lord Jesus will.
- Especially has our community, in some places, come to think that
matters of latter day prophecy are in fact the Gospel, ‘Because they’re
in the Bible, and the Bible is the word of God’. This is Bible fundamentalism
at its worst. Yet many of these prophetic predictions, attractively
presented as they are and often written about in racy journalese, are
no more than science fiction fantasy. They are stabs at understanding,
they contribute nothing to real spirituality; and the fact they are
possible interpretations of the inspired word doesn’t make them inspired
of themselves, let alone part of the Gospel.
- We must beware of a mentality that goes something like this: ‘I am
quoting the word of God, which is inspired and infallible, therefore
what I am saying is absolutely true on any Biblical subject, therefore
you are seriously wrong if you disagree with my interpretation, in fact,
if you don’t agree with my view, then, you don’t believe the Bible is
inspired’. In other words, we must not allow our interpretation of the
inspired word to become the same as the inspired word.
- We believe that the “original autographs” were inspired; holy men
of old spoke or wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The
more we appreciate this, the more we will recognize that any translation
of those original words is not in itself inspired. The originals
alone were inspired. Yet the majesty and familiarity of the translations
we read can easily lead us to think that every word we are reading
in that translation is in fact inspired. Yet it is a translation
of an inspired original source. It might also be worth bearing
in mind that none of the original documents exist. We are, strictly
speaking, believing that there was an original message
that was inspired, which has come down to us through centuries
of copying out and translation. I think we all accept that there
have been cases of textual corruption- 1 Jn. 5:7 is the classic-
and that many Hebrew words can be pointed [i.e. have the vowels
inserted] to read in very different ways. And then there are the
questions of which original manuscripts we should be translating
from, etc. Because the Bible is the only inspired book there is,
this can lead us to seeing the book as some kind of icon; it is
the only ‘thing’ we have in our experience which is directly from
God. Realizing, however, that the original autographs alone were
inspired can help us see the Bible we read for what it is- the
living, albeit translated and passed down, word of God Himself.
God spoke “by the mouth of all his prophets” (Acts 3:18).
It was their spoken words which were inspired; but there is no
specific guarantee that the written form and transmission of them
was likewise inspired. Their mouths, and not the pens of every
scribe who wrote the words, were inspired by God- even though
it would be fair to say that the preservation and transmission
of their written words was the work of ‘providence’, and the Spirit
of God in some way also at work.
- The view that every single word we read in our translations of the
Bible is ‘true’ can lead us into the problems evident in many Bible
fundamentalists. Take the words of Eliphaz against Job (Job 5:13). They
were wrong words (Job 42:7). Yet they are quoted in 1 Cor. 3:19. Wrong
statements can still be recorded under inspiration and even quoted.
Take the mocking of Sennacherib. It’s recorded under inspiration, blasphemous
as it was.
- Because the Bible is inspired, we can come to define the Christian
faith as an assent to a set of infallible Biblical interpretations-
rather than a personal relationship with a real, living and ultimately
true Being.
- There is a difference between inspiration and revelation which Bible
fundamentalism doesn't recognize. God’s revelation in the Bible
is based around personal relationships and events. Yet it is possible
to use the inspired Bible to reduce our faith and relationship
with Him to a mere system of rationalistic argument. Faith and
truth are in persons, the persons of the Father and His Son; whereas
those who misuse the concept of an inspired Bible have reduced
faith and truth to mere issues of doctrine and rational analysis.
In the Bible, events, encounters, personal decisions etc. are
the ways in which God deals with and defines His people, rather
than by assent to propositions. This latter view can only lead
to division, as a believer’s orthodoxy and faithfulness can only
be measured in terms of how they reply to certain questions. The
community built on such a propositional view of truth will become
fearful of any infringement of their positions on anything in
any area of Biblical interpretation; the church no longer is a
place where opposites and extremes can be tolerated; no longer
can it be held together by faith and trust, but rather by a uniform
interpretation of statements. Suspicion and instant defensiveness
become the order of the day. The free exchange of ideas, spontaneity
and freedom cannot be tolerated. ‘Bible study’ becomes a ritual
repetition, either consciously or unconsciously, of the positions
the local ecclesia has adopted; rather than an exciting, confronting
and challenging experience of hearing God speaking to each one
directly, and perhaps, therefore, to each one somewhat differently
[cp. “All men cannot receive this…”].
- The fact the Bible is inspired mustn’t be used to reduce the book
to merely a set of true propositions; Bible fundamentalism tends this
way. This can lead to our thinking that God reveals some information
about Himself in His word; when in fact He is revealing Himself
as a person, not just information. This tends to reduce God to
a God who has acted but doesn’t act now; to a God who has acted but
doesn’t now speak. An inspired Bible should mean to us that God Himself
is communicating with us personally; and not just revealing to us facts
which are right. Those who hold the ‘propositional’ view of Bible truth
find it very distressing to find that the God revealed in the inspired
Bible can change His mind, regret actions, and can be argued with. He
is so active and personal. If we understand that God is revealing Himself
as a person in the Bible rather than just giving us factual propositions
of information about Himself, then these things are no longer disturbing
for us.
- The end result of this kind of thinking is that we become totally
objective in our view of truth; truth is not to be found in a person,
only in cold statements. And yet the whole message of Christianity revolves
around faith in and relationship with a real, living person.
- Because the Bible is the only inspired book there is, this can lead
us to seeing the book as some kind of icon; it is the only ‘thing’
we have in our experience which is directly from God.
Finally. God's word is His communication to us, and the aim of
it is to bring about His glory, reveal and transfer His love to
us. Bible study can become an absorption in itself, and the Rabbis
rightly warned: "One should not make of the Torah a spade
with which to dig, a tool for personal use or a crown to magnify
oneself" (2). God's word isn't there to justify us, to give
us ammunition in a war of self-aggrandizement. Too often it's
misused in this way.
Back
Index