“I accept the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and life.”
I have publicly recited those words from the Declaration for Ministers of Word and Sacrament a few times in my life. They are meaningful to me every time, both because of the significant events that accompany them and because of the solemnity of the words themselves, “The only rule of faith and life.”
My relationship with the Bible has been a pilgrimage. I grew up reading and memorizing God’s Word both in church and in school. In college I was encouraged to think about Scripture critically. In seminary, I engaged the Bible pastorally. In my continued graduate work I studied these holy Writings within their historical and literary backgrounds. Although my relationship with Scripture has taken many twists and turns, I have always loved it.
The Bible hasn’t changed, but I have, and those changes have affected the way I read it. Being a minister in the USA right now is a rather contentious occupation. Divisions are the norm. Good Christian people are in disagreement about countless issues. I get it.
What I find most fascinating, perplexing, and/or troublesome is how often I am told how “clear” the Bible is on a particular topic. I usually smile wondering what the individual in my office earlier in the week who disagreed might think, who was also sure Scripture was clearly on her side?
Right now, in a world where so much information (good and bad) is available to so many, the Bible is being interpreted from the academy to TikTok. At times it’s bearing fruit, but at others Scripture is being manipulated, coerced, and even weaponized. “The only rule” is often used to echo our previously held beliefs.
Let me be clear, Scripture is not the problem. Many will correctly point out that our interpretations are the real problem. I don’t disagree. But I think it’s deeper than that.
Our fundamental flaw might stem from the reality that we have turned the Bible into something it was never intended to be, and in the process, we have minimized its voice for faith and life. I wonder if a reorienting of Scripture itself might help move all of us on our pilgrimage?
Before I continue, let me state two caveats. First, I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Second, I do not see myself as a deconstructionist. I am not trying to deconstruct the Bible, traditional Christianity, or anything else. I am just wondering if now might be a good time to reorient ourselves to what I see is a fuller vision of Scripture?
The Bible is God’s Word. I have heard it said that Scripture is God’s rulebook for life, or that it’s God’s story of God’s relationship with humanity. While these are different understandings of what the Bible is or isn’t, they often share the assumption that Scripture primarily is God’s Word to us, even if we can’t always agree on what that Word is. While this might be true, I wonder if this understanding of the Bible is incomplete?
While the Bible is no doubt God’s inspired Word to us, I wonder if it also reflects humanity’s attempts to understand God? What if Scripture is not only God’s word to the church, but if it’s also God’s Word through the church? What if what we read in those pages is a reflection of how humanity understood God, the world, and life at specific times and specific places? God is Truth and God’s Word is sure, but could it also be that the Bible also reflects humanity’s attempt to wrestle with and understand the divine?
While some might shut me out as a heretic already, I wonder if reading Scripture, in part, as humanity’s wrestling with God might bring light to some of Scripture’s difficulties? God’s Word told the early church to obey their (Roman) government. Scripture also told them that Rome was the tool of Satan and whoever was obedient to Rome was a worshiper of Satan. God chose leaders in ployamorous relationships but then says church leaders should be husbands of one wife. Women were property and they were equals. Eunuchs were excluded and then offered a home. What if Scripture reflects the progressive revelation of the Spirit to humans with the unenviable task of trying to codify the divine will?
Of course it’s so much easier to say “The Bible says it, I believe it.” But that’s really not true. What we mean is “The Bible says X in this chapter and verse, and I believe it,” even though it might say something else in a different passage. But what if we were instead to say, “This is how God was working through humanity at this time and place, and this is how humanity understood their God. What does that mean for us as we discern the Spirit today?”
Understanding Scripture as divinely inspired human letters to God still comes with dangers. We can still manipulate it to our own preconceptions. There is a danger to making Christianity and Scripture subservient to the cultural norms of the day. We should tread lightly and humbly.
While some might contend that this understanding of Scripture devalues it, I would humbly disagree. We do not honor the text or God by forcing it to be something God never intended it to be. Rather, only when we understand what it is, does Scripture fully have the power to shape us and lead us into the heart and will of God.
Over the next number of months, I hope to reimagine with you readings from Scripture that might help us better understand “The only rule of faith and life.”
22 Responses
Brave and wise. A question in need of humble pondering. Thank you
A very important topic, thank you, and an essential one for Reformed people. Two things.
First, the New Testament defines itself as “the witness of the Apostles.” There is human agency in “witness,” but also trustworthiness. There is “reflection” and “wrestling” implied in it, but also Message.
Second, fortunately we do not have to come at these issues de novo. There is a wealth of published heological material that is both sophisticated and faithful to help us work through the questions and doubts that you raise, and it would probably be good for pastors, as public theologians, to be versed in this material.
So true Dan. Nothing new to see here. It’s just an attempt to bring this topic to a more general audience. I’m not the first to do that either :-). But it just seems timely (again).
I very much appreciate the question you raise here and look forward to reading more in the future. I, like many of you have found myself in the position to say something about my convictions that women are equally gifted and needed in all areas of ministry and for full inclusion of all people (including LGBTQ+). I usually step into it without meaning to, and then I get the ‘look’. And then the shoulder shrug and the words spoken almost sympathetically, ‘Well, the Bible clearly says that…” It’s always as if they think I haven’t read the Bible – and it is so difficult when people use the words of scripture that you find life giving and freedom giving – people use them against the very core of your being – who you believe God made you to be. And they are always so sure. I will usually try to respond kindly with something like, ‘I respect your interpretation but I have studied and wrestled with this and I feel differently.’ It’s at that point that often I will get another ‘look’ – with words like, ‘it’s pretty clear what will happen to those who don’t obey’ – and then I realize they sincerely believe I am going to hell. Sigh. I am still searching for the loving and grace-filled response – and I appreciate you asking this question and giving us more words to express what we believe Christ calls us to today.
Diane,
Wise as serpents, innocent as a dove. If you’re asked to share your thoughts or convictions on any issue, and you know, the “Bible clearly says” card will be played. Play it first. “The Bible clearly says” … and share your conviction. I know, you then say something you “don’t believe.” And that doesn’t feel good, but consider the purpose of any of these conversations. If you are in it to win it, you’ve already lost. “Winning” is not the point, at least from my point of view. Holding compassionate, theologically deep discussions that lead to something like deeper relationships and understanding will not happen when anyone is trying to “win.” If you start with, “The Bible clearly says,” it will likely wrong foot someone, and give you a chance to say from the outset, “I believe the Bible is “the only rule of faith and life.” That’s why you hold your conviction, and it might allow you to get to a place where the stuff I mentioned above is possible. Rather than having conversations about exegesis, we need to have conversations about hermeneutics. If it’s possible to have a more generous, wider hermeneutic, then maybe we could have a more generous, wider exegesis … and if you’re lucky, you won’t go to hell …? And if you’re not going to go to hell, maybe more conversation can happen or something like that. Just an idea and maybe one you’re not comfortable with, and that’s okay
Thank you Chad for your thoughts. I look forward to more from you.
Thank you, Diane! That has been my experience too! I have been “judged” for hell since my 20’s! I really really appreciate Pastor Chad taking this on. I’m so frustrated by: ” the Bible clearly states…”
Chad, thanks for this reflection and am looking forward to your future series.
I have always reacted to the “only rule” part of this statement. Is not the creative Word of God in general revelation” as explained on Article 2 of the Belgic Confession, also a rule and guide to how we should live in God’s creation and of how we are to be caretakers of the earth? God’s “revelation” in his creative activity was also “inspired” as the Spirit of God hovered over the waters (Gn. 1:2).
Hi Uko
I remember being interviewed by you when I taught at Calvin. I hope you are well. Gen 1 is up first. If I only knew a thoughtful Christian biologist to engage with 🙂
Bio Logos might steer you in that direction?
Blessings on your work and witness, Chad. And thank-you!
Perhaps helpful here to recall Calvin’s notion of God’s using baby talk, suitable to our time and place and understanding.
Chad-I have felt this way about the Bible for quite awhile, but I do get “the look”, especially when I talk about the Bible as a book inspired yet historical for the people of that time. Also, I hear the word”abomination” when I mention the LGBTQ community.
Thanks for starting this dialogue.
Thank you for these timely thoughts. Like Diane expressed, I am usually shut out with the words “the word of God never changes” and very clear indications that my eternal destiny is in jeopardy because I have chosen to hear and believe different interpretations of a living Bible that breathes life into each believer in their present moment. The snarky side of me has thought about coming to church each week with my head covered, so that I may testify to anyone who might ask that “the word of God never changes”. Forgive me for these contentious leanings.
Thank you. After reading the Bible cover to cover for over 50 years, it is clear that it is an exceedingly messy book. I think that is what keeps me reading it, because life is also exceedingly messy. The Bible rings true to the life we messy humans live.
Thanks, Chad. I look forward to following along with your thinking. Like Dan Meeter, I know you’ll be refering to the prior work on this, letting the church “fathers” speak; as well as the church “mothers,” like Julian of Norwich. and Reformed scholars in our time, like Leanne Van Dyk, on discerning atonment theory.
Thanks again, keep writing.
Some thoughts after reading your blog (none of them in opposition to what you wrote, but just where my mind went in related matters). When the church calls the Bible the only “rule” for faith and life, I don’t believe that “rule” is the best word to use. I know it has a long history, but it makes it sound as if the Bible is nothing but a book of laws and principles for keeping our thoughts and actions in check, and we forget that the Bible is God’s active communication to us, God’s living voice for speaking to us now. If I went with the word “rule” at all, I’d prefer to say that Bible is the way that God verbally “rules” his people through commands, promises, and narratives. I think God does speak clearly in Scripture, but we either don’t hear the Lord clearly, or are expecting clarity in matters that God doesn’t think need to be clarified. Often the clarity comes in terms of “what” is true, but not as much in “how” or “why” it’s true (that’s where the different interpretations come in). For instance, God clearly tells us in Scripture that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead, but there’s not much clarity on the mechanics of how sins are forgiven or how the dead are raised. Instead God give us wonderful and multiple living metaphors to intrigue our minds toward loving God for the historical saving reality of Jesus’ cross and resurrection.
Good point about “rule.” The original is “regula,” which is probably better translated as “ruler,” or “yardstick,” or “kanon,” the stick by which to measure something else. The word regula presupposes that there is a something else, and that the something else has value, but it is to be made fitting. A regula is of no use at all self-existing on its own. It is only useful to make something else fit.
Why do writers feel it’s necessary to state that “I believe the Bible to be God’s inspired word” and “I’m not a deconstructionist”? Sheesh! We are so afraid of being labelled. We all have doubts about the Bible. And we all deconstruct scripture and not only scripture. We should be deconstructing every single thing in our lives and all the time. It’s not a dirty word, or at least it should not be seen as such. I know this is my hobby horse, but it wears me out when I realize how scared we are of one and other and how overly concerned we are with what our brothers and sisters think of us. Either we are family or we are not. If we are then you and I should be able to put ideas out to the rest without fear of being marginalized with some arbitrary label. So write on, my friend.
Hi Marlin: I like labels and being labeled (fairly) and I also like breaking out of a label and seeing others break out of theirs. I figure labels come from our desire to understand others by noticing patterns of behavior and clusters of ideas—hopefully so that we can love them better instead of rejecting them. Labels frequently miss the full picture, but can move us toward understanding. I thought it was helpful for understanding Chad to hear him spell out how he approached these matters and how he was using words. I’m finding it helpful to hear how you approach them as well. You appear to see the “constructive” side of “deconstruction,” while others think deconstruction itself might need to be deconstructed a bit.
I have absolutely no problem with what Chad wrote. I also don’t know what people even mean when they use the term “deconstruction.” It’s baffling to me the angst so many feel toward folks who are challenging traditional views, or who dare to offer alternative ways to look at everything around our faith tradition. I think it’s healthy. And I also believe that many, many people are hungry for it. As far as deconstruction needing deconstructing — absolutely. No sacred cows in my field. Respectfully.
“We do not honor the text or God by forcing it to be something God never intended it to be. Rather, only when we understand what it is, does Scripture fully have the power to shape us and lead us into the heart and will of God.”
Thank you, Chad, for opening up to us a timely and much needed discussion of reading, understanding, and applying Scripture to our faith pilgrimage.
Chad, thanks so much for writing!
Honestly, you sound like you’re truly Reformed, because you’ve imbibied the “Reformed and always reforming” mindset. Even with lots of Christian education you see the need to keep questioning and updating your understanding to align it better with Scripture’s intentions.
Thanks for this piece, Chad. I agree with Uko Zylstra’s point that the “‘creative Word of God in general revelation’ as explained on Article 2 of the Belgic Confession, [is] also a rule and guide to how we should live in God’s creation.” John Calvin asserts that we need the “spectacles” of special revelation to understand general revelation, but I believe history has shown us that general revelation has at times informed us how to understand special revelation. In any case, to me, revelation is revelation, special OR general, and is therefore a guide for life.