A Human Book That Can Be Dangerous

Last post I was personal. And in sharing my journey I do not want to give the impression that "I have no hope" or that I am distraught. No, in fact, what I have come to understand has enlarged me as a person. I am grateful for it, but it has been challenging and at times, painful.

When I call scripture a human book, I mean that humans wrote the book with certain understandings, and assumptions. Some of these are personal assumptions, just as the "image" of Father was an important one for me, because of my past. Each gospel writer have different emphasis' and different rememberances. This is not unusual, as when two people are asked about a certain situation, there are ususually areas of disagreement.

Why do I say that a human book, much less the Bible is a danger? Whenever there is something that is considered "special" or"holy" then humans tend to treat it differently. This should not be, as scripture was written by human beings, and though, inspired, were not inspired any more than what any other human being can be inspired. These writers did not become some "superman" before they wrote the scriptures. They were ordinary people who had had an extraordinary experience that had impacted their lives. Because of the impact, these writers were "inspired", but it was not a supernatural kind of inspiration. Without knowing really what the writer's intent was, nor can one understand how they "hoped in god", but we do know that these were "worldviews" as well as personal views of the writers. Therefore the text should not be accepted at face value because our world is different.

I find that faith is more enlarging and mores inclusive of others when there is an understanding of the text's limitation and not believeing that the text is somehow superior to the human being. The text cannot talk, interpret, or reason. So, understanding the text is "work". Ancient paradigms, language expressions, bring much confusion as how to apply the text Our modern West does not seek to apply it, but dismiss it altogether, while the conservative evangelical tries to obey it, with limited understanding of how wrongly their application might be. This is dangerous to the individual interpreter but also, others, as judgements will be based on this limited viewpoint.

What Is the Scriptures Usefulness?

The Scriptures are used by evangelicals as a way to understand God and his ways. The requirements of God are written in black and white and some, believe, are not debatable. But, are Scriptures a supernatural text that is absolute? Yes and No.

The Scripture cover over many years and are individual texts, written in different languages to many different contexts. There is no way of bringing a coherent whole to the text. Biblical scholars have sought to understand the different contexts of the individual writings and the individual authors of those writings. The social and political contexts are easier to ascertain than the author's intention, at times. What was the real 'mind-set" of Paul, for instance when he seems to speak out of both sides of his mouth about some issues? What was his "worldview? Is there a Christian "worldview"? I would say, no. There are Christian worldviewS, but not one worldview. Not only are there differences due to denominational emphasis, but there are also differences because of how one understands the text itself.

We can understand the text as inspired, just as any text that previenently shows forth God's glory through natural revelation. This means that the text is not inspired apart from the people who wrote the text. Inspiration is grounded in the natural. The text is a "form of art" and represents truths that are universal, if understood within context and with a keen eye toward principles of "wisdom". In the sense that people are inspired by God's gifting, the Scriptures are inspired. But, the Scriptures are not some superspiritualized text that is "above" humanity. The Scriptures are not God, they only reveal things about God and man.

Scriptures cannot be absolutized as law. The giving of the law was within a particular culture and paradigm. And the law was interpreted as what gave distinction to the people of God before they had a homeland (a nation-state). The Law defined an undefined people. It was their identity. Today's nation state maintains an ordered structure through law that brings a more defined identity to the individual through culture. Identity is not anti-thetical to being Christian, because being Christian, is about being human.

But, is this view of Scripture appropriate? Do we render the text as a rule-book, where everyone adheres to the "standards" that are written without recourse or re-dress from the distinctiveness of the contexts of the text, the people of the text and people of today?

These questions will be answered differently within Christian commitment. We must allow that diversity, otherwise, we limit God's revelation to our limited minds, understanding, context, knowledge of the world in the present, etc. Surely, then we would understand that the text has been understood differently. And surely we understand that the text is the text of only one tradition. It is not the whole of revelation. It is only a part.