(by Kim Thoday) As Pastors, Ministers and Priests we will occasionally have an earnest parishioner ask why Christians will come to so many different interpretations of the Bible over a particular issue. I think that it is very important for us to take these questions seriously and sit down with the person and work through these issues with honesty and integrity. Our people deserve this for their on-going spiritual and theological development. Anything less than this is really an insult to people's intelligence and worth as creations in God's image. We, as 'theologians in residence,' also have a moral obligation to keep our people informed. The following is a "template" type response that may be useful when such questions arise. Like you, I take Holy Scripture very seriously. Like you, I live it and breathe it. For me, it is the very voice of God become incarnate in human language. What I want to do is something that is not often done and yet should be. That is, I want to disclose, to the best of my ability at this point, my approach to Scripture. For I believe that some self-awareness of our pre-suppositions and assumptions about the nature of the Bible is one of the most critical steps in coming to an understanding of why there are important differences in Biblical interpretation. For instance, if you view the Bible as the divine textbook that dropped out of heaven this will significantly affect the way you read Scripture. It may for instance be why many of those who hold this view appear not to have read the Bible (after-all could we read something in an alien language?) Likewise, if you view the Bible as a book of secret codes then your readings may have more affinity with a book like the 'The Late Great Planet Earth.' Similarly, if our primary assumption is that the Bible is a myth or a law book or a history then our readings will vary accordingly. In short, our presuppositions (especially those that are unconscious or those that remain uncritically examined) will largely define the way we read the Bible and do our hermeneutics and ethics. I eluded to one of my essential pre-suppositions earlier when I stated that the Bible 'is the very voice of God become incarnate in human language.' Indeed if you were 'reading closely' there is another assumption I make immediately prior, namely: 'Holy Scripture.' Except for me, it is no longer an assumption: an assertion without self-critical evaluation. The Bible is holy because there is about it a transcendent nature - its production through a divine-human, human-divine dialectic. The Bible is holy because of its w/hol/(i)ness, that is, it embodies an holistic engagement of mutual vulnerability; a record of the humanising of divinity and the divinisation of humanity. The Bible is the Word; it is the Word of humanity giving expression about the revelation of God's Word namely, Jesus Christ (John 1:14). The revelation of God in Jesus Christ was from the outset communicated by language. Could it be any other way? Language creates meaning. For the first forty years the stories about God's revelation in Jesus were handed on by spoken Word. Around AD 70 the Word began to be shaped into written form - connecting the many Words (the many Voices, the many Stories). The genre of a written Gospel was invented. By the end of the first century AD, some more Gospels had been written. The ones that would be eventually accepted as authoritative for the emerging 'catholic' Church (from the many Jesus movements) were designated Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. These hold first place in the New Testament canon because they provide the primary source material for God's revelation in Jesus Christ. The New Testament contains many other documents also from the first century AD (and possibly the early second century). All these written Words are products of the many earliest communities of Jesus-followers, reflecting their different contexts: ethnicity, societal, religious, geographical, political and so on. The documents of the New Testament reflect different groups of people whose lives had been transformed by Jesus of Nazareth, as they reflected, worshipped, theologised and attempted to live out the teachings of Jesus in their particular situation in life. Different groups used different language (Word) to re-engage with Jesus in order to define their circumstances as followers of Jesus. Thus the Bible does not speak with one Word, one Voice, but many. There is contrast. There is divergence. Yet there also seems to be strong unifying threads. Given both our discussion of language and the diversity of the New Testament material, the multiple attestation to the basic outline of Jesus life, ministry, death and Resurrection across the diverse material is remarkable. However, not to recognise that there is unity and diversity in our Christian canon is to be liberal with Scripture. Liberals are not only those who uncritically adapt Christ to culture; liberals are also those who try to organise Scripture into culturally, politically and doctrinally pre-defined schema. It is important to allow the differences in Scripture to stand. Perhaps it is in the fissures of difference that we encounter the sacred - in the unspeakable Word, at the unstable points where the marginal narratives destabilise the grand Word(s). For me personally, it has been the appreciation of difference in the Bible that has offered me new and exciting perspectives on the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Interestingly, this journey of discovery has never diminished my love for the Bible or my experience of the reality and power of 'the' Word of God - Jesus Christ. For me, the Bible is one of the most important sources of life and salvation but it is not a substitute for the experience of faith that is to be primarily found in the Living Lord Jesus Christ. Grace and Peace, KIM THODAY, HEWETT COMMUNITY CHURCH OF CHRIST, SOUTH AUSTRALIA
top of page