Thus one of the big questions is stated.
Maybe it's the big question for the self-styled evangelical: so we've got this book. This library, really, which didn't really have an original form other than a whole pile of scrolls. And I am somehow going to try to argue - for my own benefit as much as for anyone else's - that there is a radical, underlying unity to all these disparate sources, and more, that they still speak authoritatively to God's people today, which is to say that they both reliably recount and authoritatively interpret God's dealings in space and time with people, and that this witness continues to be directly relevant to us where we are situated in space and time, both to locate our own individual and corporate narratives within the grand arc of The Story, God's own history of the world, and to give us the tools we need to answer the related question, "How shall we then live?"
Thus far my attempt (by no means definitive or final) of stating what I mean by "biblical authority." What I'd like to do from here on out is to try to develop it by thinking through some of those sticky issues that Jameson raises - why don't we go ahead and affirm some notion of continuing revelation? Why consider the canon closed? Why should the New Testament continue to govern our decisions on gender roles, homosexuality, and the like? More basically than that, how (and why) do we seek to consider our present situation in light of these documents?
I mean more to set the agenda here than to jump into these questions individually, but I'd like to begin outlining where my thinking is, to show something of how I approach the issues. First, I think it's fair to say that all of these issues are relevant only in the context of affirming the definite significance of the Christ event - that is, Jesus' incarnation, ministry, suffering, death, resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Spirit. Whatever else we want to say about Scripture, none of it matters (for a Christian) if these things didn't actually happen. I'd venture to say, beyond that, that if we're affirming the centrality of this event, then we need to hold at least a basic respect for the Gospels as witnesses to it and interpreters of it. If we take that step, then that has major implications for our attitudes toward the rest of Scripture - which is what I'd like to go on to sketch out.
07 March 2011
what does biblical authority even mean?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"First, I think it's fair to say that all of these issues are relevant only in the context of affirming the definite significance of the Christ event - that is, Jesus' incarnation, ministry, suffering, death, resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Spirit. Whatever else we want to say about Scripture, none of it matters (for a Christian) if these things didn't actually happen."
I'm glad you start here, and I just wanted to add that I start here, as well. It'll be interesting to talk about where we diverge. I think it's way too easy in these discussions to assume we must have a different starting point just because we end up in different places. To assume that, you have to assume every step is just pure logic (I think it's safe to say bright people would not have preserved purely logical mistakes for hundreds of years).
I think that was important to me here, to try to keep track of which assumptions we share. It's certainly easy to operate as though you can build a doctrine of revelation, show that Scripture fits into that doctrine, and then imagine that you're supporting other arguments through your appeal to the Bible. I don't want to do that; we need to start with Christ, because that's how we encounter God.
Post a Comment