ON BIBLICAL AUTHORITY

The Rev. John T. Farrell, Ph.D.

    Since more than once, various persons here have questioned my belief in the Bible, I would like to explain my point of view, so you all will perhaps better understand the kind of theological perspective I operate under. As an Episcopalian I accept the position that God’s revelation is a continuous process and is not confined to biblical analysis only. Instead, I believe, as do many Episcopalians, that God’s revelation is found in a four-way dialogue between the Bible, tradition, reason, and experience. It is only through the creative tension, led by the Holy Spirit, between these four sources of authority that God’s truth can emerge and the church can become a reconciling place that is open and attentive to all children of God.

    At the heart of Christian life are the teachings of Jesus Christ which we know through the Bible. Without reading the Bible, Christians would be unable to receive the joyful assurance that we are loved, that we have a Savior, and that the future lies in the hands of a merciful God. To me, Christ is the living heart of the Bible and everything therein must be submitted to the love incarnated in Him.

    When one views the Holy Scripture in this light, however, it becomes counterproductive to use the Bible as a self-contained compendium of instruction and information on every conceivable question or as an arbiter of disputes on every thorny issue that disturbs our conscience. I think that a belief in the “inerrancy” or the “verbal infallibility” or the “plenary inspiration” of the Bible is the product of trying to make the Bible something that it isn’t and of trying to make a powerful message of saving love into a trivial set of directions.

    So what do I think the Bible is, you might ask at this point? The textbook answer to that question is, of course, that the Bible is a collection of sacred books about God’s dealings with the human race from the beginning of human time through the first century of the Christian era. The word Bible means books and, for Christians, is divided into two parts. The first, the Old Testament, covers the period from Creation to the beginning of the Christian era. The second, the New Testament, covers the period from the birth of Jesus Christ through the first several generations of the Christian church.

    We Christians call the Bible “the word of God.” The Bible is about people and what happens to them because God is at work in the world. To speak of the Bible as inspired means that the Holy Spirit inspired its various authors. Inspire literally means “to breathe in.” God’s Spirit breathes into and works through individual writers to convey God’s truths and insights. In a similar way, Handel was inspired to compose Messiah or Milton “Paradise Lost” or Michelangelo the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

    Divine inspiration is sometimes thought to mean that because God’s Spirit is inspiring the individual that person cannot make a mistake. If such were the case, the individual would not be a person; he or she would be a machine in God’s hands’ like a typewriter or computer. But God makes us persons, not puppets.

    As the word of God in human language the Bible demands careful interpretation. Generally, in the Episcopal Church, as in many others, access to the Bible is achieved through a variety of critical tools known generally as the “historical-critical” approach. This method of biblical interpretation attempts to get behind the ostensible meaning of the biblical text by determining things such as its literary form, its original source, its use of metaphorical language, the purpose both of its writer and editors, the time and historical context of its writing etc.

    Crucial to the historical-critical approach is the question of translation, since not only is any version of the Bible we read today a translation, the original texts in the original language have been lost. It is the historical critical method, among other things, that allows scholars to assess the biblical advocacy of slavery, the Bible’s relegation of women to subordinate status, and its injunctions against homosexuality in their historical and literary contexts and question their relevance or their compatibility with the Christian message of love, salvation, and hope.

    Much of the Bible is written in figurative language, a statement that some believe undermines the Bible. This view betrays a lack of imagination and assumes that God shares the same deficiency. Yet Jesus scarcely opened his mouth “without a parable.” The Bible is filled with stories that are supposed to teach, not recount history. A Christian of good will who accepts the freedom offered by God should conclude that God is capable of telling stories for their metaphorical truth and one should be free to believe that not all of what is being read needs to be taken literally.

    A bishop of the church, Bennett Sims, likes to quote the poet James Russell Lowell who once wrote, “Time makes ancient good uncouth....” I don’t think that Lowell was taking an entirely relativist stance here. There are truths which are always universal: the truth and power of the message of love, faith, and hope found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for instance.

    But, he is also making the point that some expressions of “good” and “bad” in societies and cultures are seasonal in history, even though they are condoned by the Bible. A discussion of Christian attitudes toward slavery is excellent evidence of this. Sometime around 60 A.D. Paul wrote, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.” [Colossians 3:22]. Paul said this: yet there is no one who would argue today that slavery should be reinstituted, even though it was accepted, if not advocated, by Paul himself, for many Christianity’s defining theologian and ethicist.

    Another way to make this argument, of course, is to draw attention to the once widely-held view that women are inferior and have no place in the civil life of a society. This attitude too was endorsed by Paul. In First Corinthians 14:34 he said, “As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says.” Paul’s words or not, let’s face it, this is a loathsome point of view.

    Using the examples of the Bible’s positions on slavery and women, I argue by analogy—as do many others, gay and straight—that the Scriptural injunctions applying to homosexuality are perhaps in need of the same type of thoroughgoing review that was applied to the issue of slavery and the status of women.

    Only in freedom are we able to love God and be his children. All of the authors of the books of the Bible were fallible persons. Some were capable of great and generous insight. Others had more narrow horizons and were less generous. Some were absolutely wrong, and I believe as a servant of Christ I am obligated to say so. But it is fallible human beings writing in inadequate human language whom God inspires and through God conveys God’s Eternal Word. So, it is the obligation of every Christian to know the Bible and to determine its true meaning through honest, prayerful, and responsible interpretation and study.

    As a Christian I celebrate the diversity and magnitude of God’s creation. As a priest I represent the view that there are no outcasts in the Church, that there must be no outcasts in the Church. There is a prayer from the Book of Common Prayer which I think sums up my views up better than anything I could ever say about this matter:

    O God, who created all peoples in your image, we thank you for the wonderful diversity of races and cultures in this world. Enrich our lives by ever-widening circles of fellowship, and show us your presence in those who differ most from us, until our knowledge of your love in made perfect in our love for all your children; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.