"The risen Jesus, at the end of Matthew's gospel, does not say, 'All authority on heaven and earth is given to the books you are all going to write,' but 'All authority on heaven and earth is given to me'" (xi). When John declares that “in the beginning was the Word” he does not reach a climax with “and the word was written down” but “and the word became flesh.” The main thrust of Wright’s argument in The Last Word is that Christians must understand the “authority of Scripture” as shorthand for “the authority of God exercised through scripture” (p. 25).
Scripture itself assumes throughout that all authority to belong to God – and to God alone. Thus scripture points away from itself to the true authority – God, and to His Son to whom all authority has been given. Thus when Christians speak of “the authority of scripture” we are dealing with a highly condensed phrase that carries within it a lengthy narrative. “It must mean, if it means anything Christian, “the authority of God exercised through Scripture” (25). But what does that mean? And how does it function?
The situation is complicated because the Bible is generally “not the sort of thing that many people envisage today when they hear the word “authority” (25). For the most part it is a story. It is not a list of rules, though it contains rules. It is not a systematic presentation of doctrine, although it surely contains doctrine. It is, from beginning to end, the story of God seeking to reconcile His creation to himself. How can a story be authoritative?
Wright's answer is interesting: "If the commanding officer comes into the barrack-room and begins, 'Once upon a time,' the soldiers are likely to be puzzled” (26). But what if, Wright asks, the officer “briefs the soldiers about the nature of the mission and the people they will likely encounter, and how the current situation arose,” i.e. tells them a story? They will then understand more clearly the nature of their job as soldiers. Whether this is the way the military works or not, it is an exercise of authority, according to Wright, and likely a more effective one than a straightforward list of orders with no accompanying briefing.
What we need to recognize then, is not so much the authority of scripture, but rather the authority of God. This involves seeing God’s authority as his sovereign power accomplishing the renewal of all creation. The authority of scripture is a sub-branch of several other theological topics. The Bible is not simply revelation or a devotional manual.
Wright notes that the phrase, “authority of scripture” is prominently used by those who, usually in a minority, oppose something done or believed by the “liberal” establishment. When such dissidents find themselves in power, they very often quickly subdivide into groups reading the Bible this way or that. “This itself suggests that an over hasty appeal to scripture does not in fact work. We need to set scripture within the larger context which the Biblical writers themselves insist upon: that of the authority of God himself” (28).
But God’s authority is a different sort of authority from what we’re used to. It is less like a final court of appeal or a list of rights and wrongs, and more like what we see in Jesus -- healing power (authority over evil) and new teaching (authority that creates a new reality). This healing and new way of living is God's goal for all of creation - not just humanity.
“God does indeed speak through scripture… We must not confuse the idea of God speaking, in this or any other way, with the notion of authority. Authority, particularly when we locate it within the notion of God’s kingdom, is so much more than that. It is the sovereign rule of God sweeping through creation to judge and to heal. It is the powerful love of God in Jesus Christ putting sin to death and launching new creation” (33).
7 comments:
I find his redefinition of authority to be spot on and quite refreshing.
Authority resides with God and has to do with Kingdom relationships: with love, with healing, with dealing with sin.
Jeremy,
It is certainly not the world's view of what constitutes authority - nor is the view that much of the church adopts.
I'm curious to know what you think of this statement: "Scripture is there to be a means of God’s action in and through us – which will include, but go far beyond, the mere conveying of information" (30), especially the "through us" part.
I imagine it has to do with the transformative power of Scripture to change our lives and the lives of others. It is a limited restatement of the idea in Hebrews of
the word of God [as] living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart
For the author of Hebrews the Word of God is not simply Scripture, Scripture is one manifestation of God speaking.
Scripture is like a radio dial that helps us tune into God's frequency. This, though, is still part of the in us...
The through us part is accomplished by it's acting in us (transforming us) and by our proclaiming it.
The more than information is a statement of faith about the mystcal/spiritual power, the fact that it will and does transform us and others.
Though it is only one of the ways God speaks, our proclamation of scripture lets us play an active roll in Isaiah's vision of the Word
For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, And do not return there without watering the earth And making it bear and sprout, And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; o will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it. For you will go out with joy And be led forth with peace; The mountains and the hills will break forth into shouts of joy before you, And all the trees of the field will clap their hands.
Having not read the book, I am at a loss. If not "sole scriptura", are we to pray that God will give us inspiration by ESP?
two other guides, along side scripture, are reason (and that is a reason informed by the Holy Spirit) and the interprative voice of the church. which, even when someone like luther claims sola scriptura, he cannot escape these two things: 1) that it is the reader who reads and interprets scriptures and as she does she cannot escape her own memory, understanding, and imagination acting upon the text helping her understand the words; 2) that the reader is informed by those who have read before him (we read in interpretive communities), thus the reader who comes to Revelation from a premillenialist tradition, though he reads the same book as I (who come from an amillenialist tradition), will come to vastly different readings.
Still, we read scripture; we read the same canon but we must, IMHO, recognize that our readings are situated in this world... and that the writers are situated in this world as well. That, of course, does not mean that we do not affirm that Scripture is the Word of God, but it is not the only Word of God--a brother or sister speaking truth is also the Word of God... but that last comment is a little off topic of my response.
the above comments may or may not be endorsed by Wright, I began the book last summer and never finished it. :)
Great comments, Lamar and Jeremy. In fact, you've given me an idea for another post. Jeremy basically states Wesley's quadrilateral without making "experience" explicit (J mentions reason, tradition and scripture) even though it seemed to be in J's thinking. Anyway, I think the Quad gives us another way to look at the issue of the role of scripture.
Post a Comment