In this essay, I will cover a topic which I have touched on in the past, but which I wish to make available to a wider audience. This issue is a very sensitive one for members of the community of faith, especially for Church members who hold to different views and who have strong feelings about this delicate topic.
The reason why I am revisiting this topic, is because we live in a time when people struggle with the issue as to who or what is the ultimate authority that we should subscribe to in order to believe the right things, and also in order to live an ethics or morality based life. We live in a time when relativism prevails, and in which people hold to the view that "whatever is right and wrong for you, might no necessarily be right and wrong for me." This relativism, then, translates into the potential for self-absorption and narcissism, and the notion of let everyone "do their own thing." It is very reminiscent of biblical times, when the writers inform us that each one did what was right in their own eyes.
Some people like structure because it makes them feel psychologically secure. Others resent structure because they feel suppressed, and that is an intrusion in their private lives. I would like to invite you to consider and comment on how you see biblical authority either in your own life or in the life of the community as a whole.
As I point out in my doctoral dissertation "The Liberation of Puerto Rico: A Theological Perspective," (Colgate Rochester Divinity School, 1982), the Scriptures of the Judaeo-Christian tradition have been considered the primary source of faith and practice for both Jews and Christians. In spite of the various views of Scripture that scholars and theologians hold to, this body of writing has been the foundation which informs the beliefs and practices of those who believe in its message.
The first question, then, that we can pose is, does the Bible claim authority? In both Old and New Testaments, there is an implicit claim to more than human authority, and in several places, this claim finds direct and open expression. We are told, for example, that Moses received from God both the moral law and also more detailed commandments. These facts are pointed out by G. W. Bromiley in an article "The Authority of Scripture" included in the New Bible Commentary.
Bromiley then includes the arguments that are made by some that in the majority of these cases, the claim to authority is made only on behalf of the message delivered and not on behalf of the written record when the prophets and Jesus made the claim to be speaking on behalf of God. Bromiley debunks this argument by pointing out that Jesus quoted the Scriptures of the Old Testament throughout the course of His life and ministry. He also adds that the witness of the Apostles to the authority of the written record is clear.
The Bible does lay serious claim to its divine origin, status, and authority. It is stated that its message is of God. It traces its authority through the human writings to God as the primary author. It accepts the supernatural both in prophetic/apostolic utterances and in historical events. It makes no artificial distinction between the inward content of the written Word and its outward form. The message of the Bible challenges us directly to either faith or unbelief. In our approach to the Scriptures, other considerations may obtrude, but the basic challenge cannot be ignored.
The next question to be considered is, from where or from whom does the Bible derive its authority? This is a very important question, because if we are to claim and believe that the Bible is the "final court of appeal" for faith and practice, we must ask on what grounds the Bible makes that claim.
My response would be that the authority of Scripture is derivative and not inherent. In other words, the Bible is not an authority in and of itself. If we were to treat it as such, we would fall into the danger of bibliolatry, i.e worship of the Bible. The Scripture derives its authority from the one who inspired its writing, i.e. God.
If the authority of Scripture, then, goes over and beyond the Scripture itself, then we find ourselves in the position of theologian Karl Barth who said that "the Bible is not the Word of God, but rather a witness to the Word, who is Jesus." While many believers would be upset with Barth's position, no one can deny that it is a healthy one. Barth rightly pointed out that until Scripture functions as a witness to the living Word (Jesus the Christ), it is a book like any other book on a shelf. I would join Barth and other believers who acknowledge the Scripture not as revelation in and of itself, but rather a written witness to God's self-disclosure in history and through Christ.
I invite you, the reader to comment on this. Tell us, in your own words, how you think that we can maintain on the one hand, the authority of Scripture, and on the other, recognize that this authority is derivate and not inherent. Tell us how you think we can avoid the dangers and traps of worship of the Bible. Your input into this matter is very important.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
No comments:
Post a Comment