Church

What Role Should the Bible Have in Society?

by Tim Keller and Alister McGrath and Brian McLaren

Interpreting the Bible has become a divisive issue for some and little more than sport for others. Some want to talk about the “authority” of Scripture. They’re asking questions like, “How is the Bible authoritative in our lives today?” Others are wondering if the word “inerrancy” is making a comeback. Is it? Or is the term only useful for theological debates, to separate those who are “in” and those who are “out”? How then should we interpret the Bible as God’s word for our culture today?

Comments

Samuel Lee

BIBLE IS A MATTER OF WEST & EAST...

Hello everyone out there. My name is Samuel Lee, I am a sociologist & pentecostal pastor, and president of Foundation University, a good friend of Brian Mclaren...

I have been involved in studying the Holy Bible from the Eastern point of view. The West and the East have always been in dialogue yet also conflicted in their way of thinking and looking at the Scriptures. The Western perspective and theology is rooted in the dualistic nature of the Greek culture, e.g., black or white, good or evil, spiritual or carnal, etc. In contrast, Easterners do not see their world as containing dualistic, contradicting dichotomies.

Scholars in the Church of the East, i.e., the Assyrian scholars, suggest that a great part of the New Testament was likely not initially written in the Greek language. Rather, it was originally written in the Aramaic language, i.e., the language spoken by Jesus and all his disciples. Indeed, they all spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. To support this assertion, they suggest that a fisherman like Peter could not speak or write in Greek; instead, he likely wrote or dictated his letters in Aramaic, and they were later translated into Greek. This is also likely true for the gospels. During the process of translation from Aramaic to Greek, the translators perhaps made unconscious mistakes, and these mistakes would then continue in our current Bible translations.

I am sure that the information you read in my blog (see the link below) may seem challenging to many, but I find it worthy to share it here.

http://web.me.com/slwe/iSam02/My_Blog/Entries/2010/1/7_The_Bible__A_Matter_of_East_and_West.html

blessings

Samuel Lee

John

Samuel Lee -- Not to sound overly disrespectful, but that is the only evidence they offer? They don't think Peter spoke Greek, and therefore (at least it seems this way from your blog post) the entirety of the New Testament is open to them whim of reinterpretation?

Mark Goode

This video captured a thoughtful discussion about a complicated topic. Each of the panel members had several important things to say about the topic of the "Bible's role in society." But I regret that the facilitator did not take the opportunity to hone in on one of the most important issues associated with the question at hand.

Evangelical Protestants look to the Bible as the source of "ground truth." To them, it is the source of spiritual authority, the final reference for matters relating to God. Words like "inerrant" elevate the text to a level that trumps all other sources of insight. God's words -- indeed, God's Word -- is and contains the final insight into life's most important questions. Or so it is claimed.

But each of the panelists acknowledged a painful reality, one that at least one noted could get certain members of the audience "fired." Each panelist acknowledged that understanding the Text, grasping the true meaning of the Word, was no simple task. And each of the panelists offered their own stories of how they struggled to mediate the meaning of the text to their spiritual constituents.

In these remarkable moments of honesty and clarity, each panelist laid bare the most profound but unasked question: how can anyone claim to have a final, unambiguous understanding of the messages in the Bible?

Brian McLearen, Alister McGrath, and Tim Keller gave examples of how they led seekers and believers to relate to the Bible . . . and the most moving examples involved the allegorical method, one that was embraced by the early church but one that has fallen into disrepute by evangelicals entranced with stricter hermeneutical methods. For instance, Alister McGrath told of how he asked his parishioners to consider what " Exodus they have experienced in their lives." I wonder how many gay or lesbians told of their struggle to come out of the closet. And if they had, would this meet Rev. McGrath's test of an authentic encounter with the Text?

Rev. Keller spoke of the need for "spiritual humility" (rather than "epistemological humility") as he read the text but then stated it was too confusing to his parishioners to explain how the Bible could be authoritative but not inerrant. Huh? Could it be that people prefer the certainty they believe comes with the notion of inerrancy rather than the risk that is associated with a belief system that requires thought and allows room for dissent . . .

I respect and admire the passion that all of the panelists exhibited in trying to be both faithful to their calling and truthful about the complexity of the claim of Biblical inerrancy. This tension, between the bold claim of inerrancy and the practical reality of life's ambiguities (and the lack of clarity in much of the Bible) is not lost on many Americans. I suspect that many people in this country are aware of this tension and have concluded, as I have, that the Bible is but one source of insight into that person we call God. And even then, it is to be read carefully, thoughtfully, and most importantly, critically.

Patti Lehman

To be honest, I did not have time to watch the video. As to the topic if we live the truth presented in the Word in a way that matters that to me is the heart of the Gospel.

Kirk W. Fraser

How are assistant pastor's opinions of Christ? Why not memorize a Gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and pray-teach Jesus Christ?

Erik Wallis

Personally, I believe we have a perspective issue when it comes to the Bible. I love the Bible. I believe it is from God, of God, brought to us by God, and held together by God.

But,

Jesus made a statement to the pharisees in the Gospel of John, (rough quote), "You search the scriptures because you believe that by them you have eternal life, yet they testify about me and you refuse to come to me to have life."

Jesus is the "Sole Authority", inerrant and infallible, not the Bible.

Our goal doesn't need to be "To get people into their Bibles." Our goal should be to get the message of Jesus into our world. This is what I believe: We need Jesus on the stage and in the seats. We need Jesus preaching the message, and Jesus walking out of the churches into families, neighborhoods, and businesses.

Our perspective needs to be a little more focused. The Bible is beautiful and true, but Jesus is the issue.

: )

Luke Isham

Kevin DeYoung linked to this video and directed us to Keller's comments at 5:20. Spot on, Keller, very refreshing!

Wesley Walker

Bad logic kills me. Just because someone has misused the Bible does not mean that inerrancy should be thrown out the window. I really wish instead of that a good philosophical discussion on why inerrancy is not acceptable would have been done.

Also the question was not interpretation, but inerrancy!

www.studyyourbibleonline.com

P Miller

Watching this reinforced to me what I've noticed before, that there seems to be two streams in evangelical thought. The one stream, represented roughly here by Keller and McGrath, that wants to lead people, who do not know the Bible, back to the Bible as a believable truth that will give reliable direction for their lives. The other stream is familiar with the Bible, and often comes from traditions that have known the Bible for generations, and are bored and repulsed by the Bible and can't get rid of it soon enough.

Dennis

Just a note on what Lee said, as a business man, Peter would have necessarily needed to know Greek because Greek was the language of commerce. Knowing how to speak a language and how to write it are two different things and it is entirely reasonable to believe that because he was a businessman he could speak Greek, but because he was an "uneducated" man (which in itself is a loaded statement and what a Hebrew Sanhedrin leader meant by it and what we mean by it are two entirely different things) he probably dictated in Greek the text which was written down.

Chad

@lee: that theory is far outdated. Hebrew would not have been the spoken language. Jesus most likely spoke Greek to the mixed crowds, both Jews and Gentiles. Specifically, Jesus must have spoken Greek because the gospel was going out to the Gentiles.

The East/West thing is also lacking. So, is the Eastern interpretation better? We don't have Platonic dualism in Christianity. Jesus came down to us.

Chris

I think the bible should have no higher role in society than any other religous book.

Tom McGregor

Chris,

Are you inferring by your comment, "I think the bible should have no higher role in society than any other religous book" that the Bible is equal in its truth claims to all other world religions?

Wartrol

This is a successful work, I found lots of people have read your article and left their ideas about this. It provided useful

Penis enlargement

http://bentremblay.com/please-update-your-rss-feed#respond

Dan Chaney

It's amazing that 4 really educated men could have so little to say. This seemed more like four men pontificating about and contemplating their own navel; rather than a discussion of the authority of the Bible and it's inerrancy.

It is absolutely LUDICROUS to think that the same God who was wiling to send His Son and who had this plan before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), and who inspired men to write and record these words - THAT WE CAN'T NOW UNDERSTAND THEM!

We can understand Scripture (Eph. 3:4; 5:17).

How could the inspired men who wrote the New Testament consistently talk about unity of doctrine and opinion (I Cor. 1:10, Eph. 4:4-6).

It is really scary that men who lead the thoughts and minds of God's people think that the word "inerrant" is an unusable and scary word!!

Speaking of "innerrancy" and "interpretation" is not the same discussion and they don't seem to understand that. Yes, we must interpret the Bible. Yes, people have made mistakes. But that has nothing to do with whether the Bible is innerrant or not. (I understand there are manuscript variants and scribal errors, but not one of them casts any doubt on any doctrinal issue.)

These men are undermining the authority of Scripture and the power of God by saying that we can't understand what God has revealed.

Name:
Email:
Comment:
Verify Code:
	Please keep me informed with the latest updates from Q

ALSO BY TIM KELLER

ALSO IN CHURCH

What Role Should the Bible Have in Society?

Comments

Leave a Comment