“The Bible and Bible Only” is a logically impossible approach to religion.
1. The Bible cannot serve as a sole authority. Even the simplest reading requires dependence on the authority of lexicons and grammars.
2. The Bible cannot serve as the sole source of religious information. Individuals who have the Bible but no connection with the Christian community do not come up with a theology that is similar to classic Christianity.
3. The Bible is not sufficient for spiritual nurture. “Lone Christians” do not thrive
4. The Bible itself warns that it is possible to “wrest” its words into support for ungodly ideas and behaviors.
HOWEVER.
“Bible and Bible Only” religion is associated with marvelous transformations.
My grandmother responded the Bible and Bible Only preaching of an Adventist evangelist. She schooled her children in the Bible, had them memorize hundreds of verses, taught them the highly-ordered way of living Adventists deduced from the Bible. Her oldest son went to college (the first in his family to do so) and to medical school. Of his six children only two “settled” for a masters degree. The other four earned doctorates. Bible and Bible Only religion transformed our family.
One of my parishioners had been a homeless meth addict for years when he began attending our church. Now, he has finished college and has a good job as a geologist. His wife is finishing her college degree. He insists that Bible reading was a major factor in helping him escape addiction and begin really living.
In the light of this kind of transformation, it is easy to understand hyperbolic praise of the Bible. “Bible and Bible Only” does not work as a rational explanation of the role of the Bible in religious life. But as a poetic affirmation of the power of the Book it makes all kinds of sense.
Humane Adventism rejects “The Bible and Bible Only” as a rule for exegesis, systematic theology and ethics. On the other hand, humane Adventism delights in the poetry of “Bible and Bible Only” as an appropriate exaggeration in honor of the glory and power of the book. “Bible and Bible Only” makes perfect sense as the religious parallel to the rapturous exaggeration of lovers in speaking of their beloved.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
SDA evangelists are fond of invoking the phrase "The Bible is it's own interpreter". After believing this for many years, I've come to disagree with it's validity.
Is the "The Bible is its own interpreter" the same thing in your mind with "Bible and Bible Only"?
Good work, John. Attention, attention, attention, is the key word for any serious essay. But don't your remarkable grandmother had more than a romantic connection with her Bible? Like your style. Cheers, Herb
To Bulworth: I think the expressions, "Bible and Bible Only" and "The Bible is its own interpreter" are related. I think both have value and both are inaccurate if pressed to their logical limits.
"The Bible is its own interpreter" expresses the conviction that there is an inner coherence in all of Scripture--a coherence that the reverent, careful reader can discern. As a call to consider the whole of Scripture I think this is a very useful slogan. However, I don't think it will withstand rigorous scrutiny when used as a "rule" for exegesis.
There are themes that run throughout the Bible. However, I can't think of a single major theological theme for which there is unanimous Bible support. We always end up picking and choosing. I think we can muster good arguments for this picking and choosing. This prioritization of some passages over others is not illogical or irreverent. But the prioritization is external to the text.
I choose "God is love" as a filter when I read. I believe in order and justice. There are many passages that endorse these values. However, there are contrary passages that picture God as capricious, partial, impatient, even petty. I "explain them away."
I have observed too many specific instances of the power of the Bible to support positive transformation for me to be cavalier in my interpretive smoothing of the Bible's inconvenient statements. On the other hand, I have observed too many instances of people being damaged in the name of preserving the "honor of the Bible" through the rigorous application of a wooden reading of the text.
So I affirm the value of the Bible. It brings something to spiritual and religious life that cannot be derived from any other source. However, the "Bible alone" is insufficient for spiritual health or sound theology.
To Herb Douglas: I agree that grandmother had more than a romantic connection with her Bible. Adventists have more than a romantic connection with the Bible.
The Adventist engagement with the Bible has included intense intellectual work and a radical commitment to obedience--neither of which are readily captured by the word, "romantic." But the intellectual work always included MORE than just reading the Bible. (Witness the intense engagement with classical ancient history that was common among early Adventist preachers.) And the obedience--e.g. the willingness to keep Sabbath in the face of intense opposition--showed itself almost exclusively among readers of the Bible who connected with the Adventist community.
My argument is that the phrase "The Bible and the Bible Only" (BBO) makes sense as poetic hyperbole but does not make sense as sober, rational description of our approach to exegesis or systematic theology.
For these reasons:
1. Proponents of BBO vehemently disagree with each other. Pippim and Ratzlaff would exhibit one of this.
2. In discerning the meaning of the biblical text we rely on extra-biblical sources such as grammars, lexicons, archeology, and ancient history.
3. The Bible is insufficient for spiritual formation. In places in the world where people have access to the Bible but not to social interaction with the larger Christian community, they do not come up with a theology very much like ours and what church there is usually dies out with a generation or two.
The Bible is irreplaceable and non-fungible in theology and spirituality. But that is not the same as being all-sufficient.
Interesting.
Perhaps whoever actually wrote Hebrews 4:12 should have revised the text to read, "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than a double-edged sword, as long as it is accompanied by Bible commentaries, a Hebrew and Greek Lexicon and a Bible dictionary, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow..."
Okay, all joking aside.
The Spirit did send Philip to the eunuch who was reading the Scripture, and when Philip asked if he understood what he was reading, the eunuch said, "How can I unless someone explains it to me?"
The Spirit wasn't incapable of revealing the message of Isaiah 53 to the eunuch. He didn't rely on Philip's willingness to do it. Rather, I believe that the Spirit took pleasure in the fellowship of Philip and the eunuch and wanted to bless both men with the experience.
God is community. It would make sense for Him to create a need in us for interdependence when it comes to knowing Him, revealing complementary aspects of Himself to different individuals who come together in fellowship,creating a "collage" of experience for a more complete picture of who He is. In addition, I believe He has also inspired tools to assist us with understanding His word.
On the other hand, I believe God is capable, if necessary, to both inspire Scripture and let the Spirit unfold layers of meaning to people who study the Bible and the Bible only. Even without the luxury of the Conflict of the Ages series in their personal home libraries. *grin*
Bottom line, in my opinion: Do God's people benefit and gain a deeper understanding when they use study tools? Yes. Can someone know God and understand salvation using the Bible and the Bible only? Yes. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
John,
Thanks for your response.
How do you square your understanding of Textual Adventism with what is essentially a BBO approach taken by SDA evangelists, like Amazing Facts?
Perhaps this begs the question of whether both approaches are in some way useful for the church?
"How do you square your understanding of Textual Adventism with what is essentially a BBO approach taken by SDA evangelists, like Amazing Facts?"
My argument is that BBO exponents like Amazing Facts are unaware of what they are actually doing. They claim the Bible and Bible Only as the source of their convictions, but that is simply not true. For example, Amazing Facts supports the Adventist prohibition against smoking. Obviously the Bible does not explicitly prohibit smoking. The only way to arrive at a prohibition against smoking is to combine principles derived from the Bible--the human body as a temple, the human person as servant--with knowledge that comes from human experience--smoking defiles the body and diminishes the person's availability for service.
Obviously, I agree that people ought not smoke. But you cannot arrive at that conclusion without invoking authority (knowledge, insight) that cannot be found in the Bible.
There are a number of similar instances in which a careful attention to the Bible has led to advanced morality. For example abolition, prohibition, vegetarianism, monogamy all have roots in devout Bible reading. But all of them go beyond the explicit teaching of the Bible. In fact, all of them contradict the explicit teaching of at least some passages in the Bible.
The Bible has been an important tool in these moral advances. But the "Bible and Bible Only" would never have led to what we now consider incontrovertible ethical or moral imperatives.
Post a Comment