Question For Former Pastors, Theologians, Apologists Or Whoever

[R. S. Martin]

I'm reading James Barr's book about the Bible in the Modern World. He's talking about the authority of the Bible from a non-fundamentalist perspective. Here's a statement I don't know what to make of. Maybe someone here has an idea. I hate to bug my prof all the time--well, he seems to be too busy to respond. Here goes:

Many of those who take part in the modern discussion have indeed found that some biblical passages do thus `speak with authority' but that this cannot be generalized into a universal rule:

even passages which `speak with authority' to some may fail to do so to others, and the experience based upon some passages can certainly not be extended to all others

(p. 29).

The bolded part esp. is my question. What kind of "authority" is he talking about? Anybody here ever heard the likes?

[currentchristian]

He may mean that any person reading the Bible will find a particular injunction or idea or even commandment to seem sensible, reasonable, true, good, holy, right -- for that person. This is the "authority" referred to: the "authority" to cause one to change her/his behavior or ideas or views.

 

These same moments of contact with authoritative truth for one person might not at all speak to another person in the same way or to the same degree. For example, my reading of the Bible in my late teens and in reading of a book Nuclear Holocaust and Christian Hope when I was 21 spoke to me, authoritatively, that I should embrace pacifism. I did so and registered as a "conscientious objector" with the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors. I would not consider joining any military organization, embracing instead a citizenship that is beyond the earthly plane. But many others do not feel this call to pacifism or non-participation in military matters.

 

Same book, but a different understanding or reading. Same Jesus, but everyone sees him through their own eyes.

 

The question becomes, of course: What authority does the Bible have in the life of one who is a "believer"? Are there degrees of authority innate within the text? How much leeway does a believer have to reject what doesn't speak to her/his spirit? If one woman finds Paul's injunction to "submit" to her husband fine and dandy while another woman does not, does Christian liberty allow these two women to make opposite choices and yet remain fully integrated in the body of Christ? These are the questions for those who chose to be "in Christ." For most on this forum, of course, these are academic matters -- irrelevant and perhaps even wasteful of the time it takes to contemplate the question.

 

-CC in MA

[pandora]

I agree with currentchristian. I have heard that term used before at the liberal seminary next to my old university. I've heard it used in the context of very liberal Christians (or spiritual non-Christians, like Unitarians).

 

A passage will speak with "authority" because the basic moral or sentiment has special meaning to the reader, or the reader feels some special connection to the passage, such as when Jesus talks about the poor, or the Golden Rule, or some other lovey-dovey passage. Most people agree about the importance and relevance of such passages, but there are always differing opinions on interpretation or meaning, as it is a "modern" discussion, and not tied to the dogma of traditional orthodox religion.

[currentchristian]

The problem, of course, is what do we do about those who feel called to enforce the authority of the less-attractive passages, such as some of those in Leviticus? (Thinking about Westboro Baptist Church).

 

We need a definitive pronouncement from all the Christian groups that do not go along with the death penalty for homosexuals, adulterers, Sabbath-breakers, etc., to officially declare these passages dead to the Christian, no longer authoritative for anyone in their fellowship.

 

-CC in MA

[R. S. Martin]

Thanks for your explanations. I've read the rest of the book now and your explanations fit in with it. Reading it in the posts here also helps with clarification. Helps it to "gel" or whatever.

[Bobo]

He may mean that any person reading the Bible will find a particular injunction or idea or even commandment to seem sensible, reasonable, true, good, holy, right -- for that person. This is the "authority" referred to: the "authority" to cause one to change her/his behavior or ideas or views.

 

Christians will undoubtedly tell you that truth is universal and that the moral codes that apply to one person must apply to everyone because God sets one standard. (Never mind that the Bible writers couldn't even agree with each other about morality, and the supposedly sinless Jesus violated quite a few of them.)

 

To an extent, however, I agree with the Christians. So here's my universal truth: basing your morality on a holy book written thousands of years ago is just dumb. That applies to every person in every time period in every culture. D-U-M-B. When we start making decisions based on evidence instead of superstition and religion, the world will be a better place.

 

That means that we don't need these debates on the meaning of scripture because the very idea of holy scripture is based on the assumptions (1) that God exists and (2) that He apparently said everything that He needed to say to people who lacked access to more rational, scientific explanations such as evolution.