This is the third in a series of posts about the Bible in which I want to say how and why I find the Bible essential for my spiritual life. (The first is here. The second is here.) I hope these musings may be useful to others.  The reflections in these posts about the Bible draw on material I presented at the Midyear gathering of Iowa Yearly Meeting Conservative, and on reflections that Friends at that gathering shared with me, as they welcomed me into their midst.

Evangelist_Matthew_Inspired_by_an_AngelWhoever put pen to paper (quill to scroll?), we do best to look at the Bible as having been written by a community of believers, who sorted through a larger quantity of written material and selected out the books most valuable to them in their spiritual life.  We should look at the Bible we now have as a gift from the earliest communities of Christians, and be grateful for this gift.  Those two sentences are a quick summary of the first two posts in this series.  [Image: Rembrandt, Evangelist Mathäus und der Engel  (1661)]

If we can have confidence that the writing of the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then we will value this gift all the more.  That is what we say, isn’t it, when we want to affirm that there is special value or special authority in the Bible, and that is what we deny, isn’t it, when we dismiss or discard the Bible?

Quakers know a thing or two about divine inspiration. This is our gift to others: the steady affirmation that that there is an Inner Light that provides guidance if we will still ourselves and listen. We proclaim George Fox’s joyous epiphany that Christ has come to teach His people Himself – even if some of us have grown reluctant to speak of Christ. We believe that the possibility of such divine inspiration is within each and every human being, and so we treat every human being as sacred.

We organize our worship to allow spontaneous vocal ministry from those who receive an inspired message (one meant for others, too) in the midst of gathered worship.  That is the whole of the plan for worship in an unprogrammed meeting, and even pastoral Friends Churches provide a time for such unprepared messages in the middle of their more programmed worship services. We conduct meetings for business is a worship setting looking for guidance from the Holy Spirit.  The dramatic experience of hearing inspired messages in worship is largely what drew me to Quakerism.

So if we know about the possibility of divine inspiration, if we trust that this is an experience open to each and every human being (even to those who deny the possibility), what does such inspiration have to do with the divine inspiration of the Bible?

For some Christians, the divine inspiration that created our Bible is a different, higher, more miraculous inspiration than any inspiration we can know today. They believe that the inspiration that created the Bible was a limited time offer of the Holy Spirit, one available to a relatively small number of human beings in the two centuries or so after Jesus’s death. That era of super-divine inspiration created texts with a perfection that is unapproachable in other texts or messages. Those who hold this view often speak of these texts as “inerrant” (without error), and sometimes speak of the guidance the authors were given by the Holy Spirit as “plenary inspiration.”

With many other Christians, I believe the Bible is an inspired set of texts. But I also believe the inspiration that created them is the same sort of inspiration that can seize a person today in worship or prayer. It was not a super-special, limited-time, higher, better, more exalted kind of inspiration than what is available to us today.  How is such inspiration available to us? There is no formula, and could happen at any time or place, but likely the possibility of such inspiration is increased in a gathered meeting for worship. So if the first is a “super-inspired” conception, I think a more sensible view is a “community-inspired” conception of how the Holy Spirit works among us.

I believe this community-inspired view is much more consistent with how Friends have viewed God’s message to us. We are reluctant to ascribe special divinity to particular places or particular days. We think ministry is an opportunity and responsibility for all, not just something for priests or those specially ordained.

Robert Barclay’s Third Proposition (“Concerning the Scriptures”) reminds us “the Scriptures’ authority and certainty depend upon the Spirit by which they were dictated.” And he adds:

If by the Spirit we can only come to the true knowledge of God; if by the Spirit we are to be led into all Truth, and so be taught of all things; then the Spirit, and not the Scriptures, is the foundation and ground of all Truth and knowledge, and the primary rule of faith and manners.

On Barclay’s understanding, we can only understand the Bible fully because the Holy Spirit opens the text to us. Even with the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit must still work among us.

I refuse to believe that the Holy Spirit ceased speaking to us nearly two millennia ago.  And thus I believe the Bible is an inspired text and an essential one, but I believe the inspiration that created it is a kind of inspiration we can and do know today.  Such inspiration we can know today, through worship, is also wonderful.  But I would not take any message, however inspired, to be “perfect” or “inerrant.” And so I do not take the Bible to be “perfect” or “inerrant:” wonderful, yes; essential, yes.

I wrote something related about a year ago in a post on The Reach of Divinity.

Next: The Bible as Unfinished Work

Also posted on River View Friend

Views: 511

Comment by James C Schultz on 5th mo. 6, 2013 at 5:17pm

While I might and I say might argue that the bible is indeed perfect, I don't think anyone (outside the RC church) can argue that anyone's understanding of the bible is perfect or inerrant.  I think the word perfect should be viewed as looking at the Bible as one of God's creations and as such is as perfect as the available mediums allow it to be.  However, understandings of exactly what the bible says about anything is so dependent on individual and cultural biases or filters that it's no wonder we have so many various christian doctrines.  It is in gathered meetings, such as the meetings of Christians down through the ages who decided on what writings were indeed inspired, that we hope to sift this gift of the Holy Spirit, biblically and contemporaneously, to discern His wisdom for us today and the more limited in souls such meeting is the less chance of inerrancy.

Comment by Doug Bennett on 5th mo. 6, 2013 at 9:42pm

It is not the Roman Catholic Church (for the most part) that insists on the doctrines of inerrancy or plenary inspiration. It is rather certain strains of evangelical Christian denominations that argue this. For example here is Article 4 of the Church of the Nazarene's Articles of Faith (their creed): "We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith." The part of Indiana Yearly Meeting that is continuing to call itself that after the schism has also embraced inerrancy, I believe, though I am not at all sure that very many of its members have really weighed what this means. They think rather that "taking the Bible seriously" = "viewing the Bible as inerrant." But that is a false equation. 

Down the road I want to address the (I believe misguided) doctrine of inerrancy, but first I want to focus on how and why I see the Bible as an essential book for my spiritual life -- and how and why I hope it is essential for others as well.

Comment by James C Schultz on 5th mo. 7, 2013 at 10:57am

So are you discussing the bible or our understanding of the bible?  In my mind they are two different things.

Comment by Tania Aveling on 5th mo. 8, 2013 at 4:40am

This was a really enjoyable post for me to read.  I was raised Seventh-Day Adventist (like the Nazarene church, SDAs embrace the Bible as the infallible, inspired Word of God, and as a little girl, I was taught to place it at the very top if I was putting books in a pile).  As an adult, applying for membership in my regional Quaker meeting, I've really felt the absence of the Bible as a source of wisdom and inspiration at a kind of emotional level - but been reluctant to venerate it.  Actually, I now go for several months at a time without really reading it - but then, I read it so much as a child and young person that I can pretty much find what I want when I want it!  It's nice to see it given a "place" in our lives as Quakers.  

Comment by Stephanie Stuckwisch on 5th mo. 18, 2013 at 3:41pm

Although I haven't commented on all the posts, I've appreciated your series on the Friends and the Bible.

I find meaning in the idea of the Bible as the inspired writings of a community. Just as a minister can outrun her/his Light in worship, so it seems to happen in some of the writings. Other times, I find the weakness is with me (reader/listener) and not the minister.

Comment

You need to be a member of QuakerQuaker to add comments!

Join QuakerQuaker

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.


You can also make a one-time donation.

Latest Activity

William F Rushby replied to William F Rushby's discussion 'Recapturing Initiative for Conservative Friends'
"The paper I just posted revises one I wrote 20 years ago.  I would like to add one more…"
5 hours ago
William F Rushby posted a discussion

Recapturing Initiative for Conservative Friends

I have been involved with Conservative Friends, sometimes more and sometimes less, for 50 years. …See More
12 hours ago
Marcia P Roberts commented on Marcia P Roberts's blog post 'No respector of persons'
"William, Keith: Thank you for your words, which strengthen me and comfort me in this struggle. In…"
3rd day (Tue)
Keith Saylor commented on Marcia P Roberts's blog post 'No respector of persons'
"Marcia, I share your struggle with the power of the reflective process in matters of human…"
3rd day (Tue)
William F Rushby commented on Marcia P Roberts's blog post 'No respector of persons'
"Marcia: Sorry I didn't proofread my spelling of your name!"
7th month 27
William F Rushby commented on Marcia P Roberts's blog post 'No respector of persons'
"Marica: Don't take it personally!  The mind plays tricks on all of us.  I have yet…"
7th month 27
Marcia P Roberts commented on Marcia P Roberts's blog post 'No respector of persons'
"Your comments, Keith, and the follow-up comment of William, both touched a chord. You describe my…"
7th month 27
William F Rushby commented on Marcia P Roberts's blog post 'No respector of persons'
"Keith Saylor wrote: "Marcia, I have read this piece a number of times. A concern keeps…"
7th month 27

© 2020   Created by QuakerQuaker.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service