This study was formed during my training to be a Methodist Local Preacher, as part of my portfolio of work. It was written in part as I felt frustrated at some of the more liberal interpretations of the Scripture but aimed to look at the benefits and disadvantages of different approaches.

Debates, arguments and disagreements have formed part of the life of the Church ever since the early days of its inception nearly 2000 years ago, when the first Council of Jerusalem had to be held to determine the place of Gentile believers in the Church. One such longstanding debate has been over the nature of Scripture – about which books constitute the canon, and the authority with which scripture is recognised and awarded.

The variety in the Bible

The Bible that we read and know today was written and gathered together by many different people over a vast period of time. There is a beautiful array of different styles of writing, reflecting the way that God uses individuals and allows their unique personalities and ways of expressing themselves to come through. It also reflects how God, from the very beginning, chose to work with and through humankind, not just imposing a one-size-fits-all straitjacket upon us. The various books, as well as containing different styles, are also made up of different media: – macro-history (kings, wars, major country-wide, region-wide and even world-wide events); and micro-history, the stories of individuals, often with these blending into each other; law; poems, songs, prayers and laments; wisdom literature such as the Proverbs; romance; letters; and prophecy (which itself forms various forms, including pictorial visions).

Whereas the authorship of some of the canonical books is relatively undisputed, scholars have made various suggestions over the years on the sources of others. The Jewish Torah, or Pentateuch, traditionally ascribed to Moses, is thought by many scholars to have been put together as a composite work, drawing on several sources. The fact that the bulk of the Torah covers approximately six centuries of history, in addition to the pre-Abrahamic era, and the variety of writing styles and the difference in perspective given when retelling the same stories suggests, on the surface, that one writer alone could not have scribed the whole thing first hand.

The fact that some people take verses out of context, or even protect them out of fear, does not negate the inerrancy of the Bible however; more it shows an unwillingness to engage with the text on a deeper level to understand the heart of what God is saying in a particular situation.

Even today, which biblical books are included in the canon varies between the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox traditions. In the early church, the decisions about which texts should form part of the New Testament were taken by several councils, over the first few centuries of the church. Felix Just¹ lists the criteria used by the Early Church Fathers as:

• Apostolic Origin – attributed to and based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their close companions).
• Universal Acceptance – acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the ancient world (by the end of the fourth century).
• Liturgical Use – read publicly when early Christian communities gathered for the Lord’s Supper. […]
• Consistent Message – containing a theological outlook similar or complementary to other accepted Christian writings.

Various historical approaches

John Wesley (image from the National Portrait Gallery) who said that – “The Scriptures are a complete rule of faith and practice; and they are clear in all necessary points.”With all this in mind, how should the Bible’s authority be viewed? John Wesley certainly saw them as having authority – “The Scriptures are a complete rule of faith and practice; and they are clear in all necessary points” – with explanation necessary at times.² He recognised that they could contain inaccuracies, or “corruptions in the received text”, including translation errors. Others have taken a variety of approaches. For the purposes of this study, I will be leaving out those who think that the Biblical scriptures are ancient writings which are irrelevant to today’s society, focussing more on the varied opinions of those who consider it to have a message to bring to society and to the church.

Critical methods

During the Enlightenment, so-called historical-critical methods of studying the bible emerged, focusing on discovering which parts of the bible were historical facts, and looking at where it was just a question of which moral truths were to be extracted. Critical methods looked at the inconsistencies and seemingly unbelievable parts in the bible, leading them to regard some parts, Jonah for example, as not a story of fact but of a moral tale speaking about the importance of obeying God. There are of course numerous advantages to this approach. It can lead to a helpful way of seeing laws, verses and stories in context. It leads to the underlying important approach for many biblical scholars today – let scripture interpret scripture. It helps with looking at the texts with a whole-bible approach, seeing the themes that are interwoven throughout scripture. However, it has had a tendency also to lead some to reject some of the more supernatural events of the bible, explaining them away in a rational manner. Explanations are thought up to how Jesus could have fed the 5,000, for example, such as each of them really having had a packed lunch. This can then lead to a rejection of God’s supernatural intervention in human lives, which has pervaded the church, weakening it, even rendering it impotent in many areas.

A moral understanding

There are some that just recognises a limited verbal inspiration for the texts. They consider the overall moral teachings, and notions of God, such as God being a creator, and the moral teachings of Jesus as being the only ones that matter. This approach allows for the acceptance of archaeological and scientific research which appears to be at odds with the bible to be taken on board wholeheartedly and unquestioningly, such as the model of evolution, or seeming lack of evidence of David and Solomon in the period assigned to them. This approach brings major problems, consistency being predominant. How can you be sure which bits of the Bible are inspired by God, and which ones aren’t? It leads to a pick-and-mix Christianity, which allows people to choose the doctrines that they like and dismiss all others. It leads ultimately, logically speaking, to a rejection of the God revealed in the Bible. For example, if the predominant worldview of evolution is preferred, with the Creation story being relegated to a ‘helpful myth’, it leads to an understanding that the death, mutation, pain and suffering necessarily involved in evolution and natural selection were part of the world from the beginning; that therefore, if there was a Fall (whether with a fruit and serpent or not) it had no direct consequences, as death was already in the world. God, describing his new creation as ‘very good’ was therefore pronouncing a world containing death and suffering to be good. This leads to an understanding that, if God exists, he must not be good, which is the view of naturalists such as David Attenborough. It also means that, morally, we can pick and choose whatever suits our situation best.

How can you be sure which bits of the Bible are inspired by God, and which ones aren’t? It leads to a pick-and-mix Christianity, which allows people to choose the doctrines that they like and dismiss all others.

Of course, any interpretation of the Bible’s authority can lead to a mentality somewhat akin to this pick-and-mix Christianity if we favour, on a regular basis, certain texts over others. It has been this tendency which has led many to use certain texts out of context, leading to them justifying atrocities such as slavery and apartheid. However, this type of error creeps in most when a cultural norm is read ‘into’ the bible (eisegesis) as opposed to reading the bible to see what it says (exegesis).
Inerrancy, or biblical fundamentalism

The accusation of taking verses out of context, so-called ‘proof-texting’ has been placed at the door of another form of viewing the scriptures, biblical fundamentalism, as has belief in the inerrancy of scripture, teaching the literal truth of the bible and its wholly divine origins. This has been criticised by liberal scholars, and also the Vatican, who denounced it in 1993 as ‘a reading of the bible which rejects all questionings and any kind of critical research’.³ Those traditionally referred to as fundamentalists are also accused of putting a ‘hedge’ round scripture, trying to defend it.⁴ This was also practised by orthodox Jews: the Talmud, spiritual writing explaining and elaborating on the Torah, is also referred to as a ‘hedge’ by Jewish scholars, who have often seen it as putting extra rules round commandments to prevent the commandment being broken. In the same way as orthodox Jews have strict rules regarding keeping the Sabbath (for example, not lighting a fire, translated to modern-day living as nor also switching on electrical switches, as this is classed as work, or only walking the maximum of one mile that day), Bible Belt fundamentalist Christians have had rules about not dancing, and not drinking alcohol, in part to avoid other sins such as fornication. However, it does not require a particularly thorough look at the bible to see that these rules are cultural, not biblical, as King David danced, and Jesus turned water into wine. They are additional rules created by fear, or devised for a particular time and place, but then taken as being essential in themselves. Jesus himself had a lot to say about this approach, particularly in regard to the burden of the additional Sabbath rules.

Trusting amidst the questions

The fact that some people take verses out of context, or even protect them out of fear, does not negate the inerrancy of the Bible however; more it shows an unwillingness to engage with the text on a deeper level to understand the heart of what God is saying in a particular situation. Nor does the fact that adherents to this premise are seen to ignore the seeming inconsistencies in Scripture negate its authority. A careful, thoughtful evangelical approach can be incredibly helpful, as it starts from a place of strong foundations – a deep trust in God and the Bible. Scripture says of itself, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (1 Tim 3:16), and Jesus himself, as did the apostles in the letters, regularly referred to Old Testament verses (occasionally out of context, interestingly enough). Whilst using tools such as whole-bible, canonical, and contextual approaches, allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, linked in with prayer and reflection, whilst carefully following scientific and historical developments, even the more challenging texts can be helpful in their own way. One of the often overlooked themes of the Bible is just how many of the bible characters question and argue with God, such as Abraham, Habbakuk, and Job. Jacob even wrestles with him. God in all these encounters welcomes these deep questions. If we approach some of the more difficult passages and seeming inconsistencies with a ‘Why?’ approach, as opposed to a disbelieving one (“I don’t think Jesus would have said this” was one interpretation I heard in a sermon), we begin to wrestle with God, engage with God, listen to God. In the context of difficult passages, this approach questions, to quote Krish Kandiah, “What if the tension between apparently opposing doctrines is exactly where faith comes alive?”⁵ Looking at seeming discrepancies between science/history and the Bible can lead scholars to research deeper into these. God has created room for questioning and believing to go together hand in hand. Indeed, it was the belief that God created order in the universe, which came from the Bible, which led to the beginning of the growth of scientific knowledge in the first place. God gave humankind enquiring minds.

God has created room for questioning and believing to go together hand in hand.

Therefore, to sum up, some of the approaches developed by modern biblical scholarship can be very helpful to understanding of the Bible, but where they lead to a rejection of much of the supernatural elements, they have the potential to lead to a weakening of the faith and of the Church as a whole. A strong belief in the inerrancy of scripture also raises a good number of questions, both theological and scientific, but as the Bible actively encourages questions, especially questions that take us directly into a passionate interaction with God, it surely leaves us with a stronger, faith-based Christianity that can stand firm through whatever life throws at us.

Notes:
¹ As quoted by Holgate and Starr, Biblical Hermeneutics, 2006, p.28
² J. Wesley, Letters, Vol. 2, p.325, taken from Barrie Tabraham, The Making of Methodism, p17, 2010.
³ The Pontifical Biblical Commission (1993) cited in Holgate and Starr as above
⁴ Gnuse 1985, p.28, (cited in Holgate and Starr, p24).
⁵ Krish Kandiah, Paradoxology, 2014