Joe, as per your last question, I think I know what you are saying. Before, you approached the Bible and expected to extract some concrete lesson which you could apply to your life, thus effecting certain spiritual growth. But as you’ve communicated, this has stopped working, to an extent. It seems as though now your stance in regard to the Bible is that you encounter the living God through it, who is not as comprehensible (for lack of a better word) as a set of bullet points which spell this God out in exact terms, more than you ever had before. Bible study is no longer an exercise in stocking characteristics or nuggets of wisdom into neatly sorted tupperware bins labeled with precise categories. Instead, it’s more about meeting and being comfortable with a person (God), more so now than ever before, who is not as accurately comprehended by our limited minds as we once thought. Perhaps this new-found surety or confidence you speak of, even in the midst of swimming in the ocean of the unfathomable Creator, is that you have more assuredly encountered the God who years prior knew and loved you without your knowing it so deeply as you do now.

A few years ago, someone in my local chapter did a presentation based on your message about testimony writing. It was received well, and to my knowledge people are still writing testimonies more or less according to some of those guidelines. In light of the things we have been discussing, perhaps it would be a good idea to openly critique that message; not necessarily to tear it down, but to improve upon it for future practical implementation.

Despite my frustrations, there are various reasons why I am still in the ministry. One strong reason is that I want to help the young students under my care to grow in a spiritually healthy way. Since one of UBF’s deeply influential hallmarks lies heavily with the testimony/reflection writing process, I think that this is a key area to revisit and perhaps revise. It would seem as though Bible study methods would precede a discussion on testimony writing. But everyone has heard and heard again of new and improved Bible study methods. But if we constructively and graciously discuss an issue as personal as testimony writing, people will begin to talk either positively or negatively; I’m pretty sure no one is indifferent to this topic. This will open up further discussion about methods of biblical interpretation and so forth in a more natural, and hopefully not divisive, way.

Maybe I need to take a step back here and get everyone’s opinion. Am I putting too much stock into this issue? Personally, I am deeply convinced that testimony writing heavily influences, for better or worse, the spiritual growth of the young people under our care, not to mention my own. Ben has also singled out authoritarianism and a non-Christocentric/telic view of scripture as more overarching sources of unhealthy spiritual growth. But where do we actually start? I suppose that this is what ubfriends is devoted to. Any positive thoughts/comments on this issue?

http://www.amazon.com/Scripture-Authority-God-Bible-Today/dp/0062011952

That report you mention, about how to write a testimony, was something that I produced in 2002. I remember it only vaguely. I’m sure that now I would agree with parts and disagree with parts. How about this: Maybe I can post that on UBFriends tomorrow as “An Actual Report from Joe-2002” and let everyone critique it?

Personally, I love to talk about and share with Christians what I have been learning from the Bible and about the Bible. I talk about these things virtually every day, especially with my wife. I have a greater awareness today of what I am learning and what God may be doing in my life than I have ever had before. But these discussions are much more like dialogue, not proclamation, and my conclusions are more tentative. I no longer proclaim that “God taught me this” or “God taught me that” because I feel that my life of faith is an ongoing journey, and it would be premature to make such strong statements when I am still on the journey. Also, I want and need to hear what my wife and others close to me have to say about it before jumping to conclusions. In one sense, I speak with a lot less certainty than before about what I have been learning. And yet, I am more certain than ever that God is working in my life. Does that make any sense?

Discussing and pondering this issue of how to view the Bible correctly is precisely what I’ve been wanting to do for quite some time. I’m so thankful that we’ve been given this opportunity here. I’ve recently been put in charge of a small fellowship group and so I’ve been asking the question, “how can I really be of benefit to these people; what can I impart as well as learn?” After hearing testimonies in which people claim promises that are not theirs or make applications that seem aberrant, I’ve come to the conclusion that our biblical outlook, as a ministry, needs somewhat of an overhaul. To me, it’s not necessarily enough to say that the Holy Spirit Himself will fix all of this; I think that the leaders are given a commission to speak or instruct through the power of the Spirit to help us the congregation to navigate especially this particular matter. Brian, I appreciate your testimony of how you became a Bible learner. I think that you have shared many important lessons which I have also gleaned from studying the materials of other ministries who are committed to correct exegetical and hermeneutical methods. This is so vital in a time when our ministry is beginning to emerge, in my estimation, from the traditionalism that colored our lenses when viewing/teaching/preaching from the Bible.

Joe, the N.T. Wright lecture you posted helped me to sort out some of thoughts I’ve had from as far back as the time I started attending UBF. I couldn’t put my finger on it, and I’m not saying that he has ‘cracked the code’, but I think that he is on the right track. There is so much material for discussion there that it might warrant a separate thread altogether. I encourage others to read this article as well (http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm). Several years ago, I attempted to read his book, The New Testament and the People of God. I wanted to understand how to read the gospels because since they are not as straightforward as the epistles. I think that this article is a good primer for such a book.

I’ll simply touch on this point for now because it is a relevant one to me: He says, “How easy it has been for theologians and preachers to translate the gospels (for instance) into something more like epistles!” His view, similar to yours Joe, is that the Bible is not merely a guide book for right living or even a step by step manual which instructs us as to how to connect with the triune God. It’s actually a narrative of God’s dealing with his people which necessarily include communication of His instructions for them interwoven throughout the text. This is not to say that things such as Jesus’ commands are not for us, but for the first century Christians. That would be preposterous. But when I think about the Bible in the aforementioned way, I am less inclined to ‘jump the gun’ and forcibly extricate a personal application from the Bible, that may not be there in the first place. It’s as Wright says, we actually display a low view of scripture when we think that we need to help it interpret itself in this way. I think that in our Western, analytical mindset, we want a bullet list of what to do or how to divide the particular book. But the Bible was not written in this way; it was written primarily by easterners. Even in Luke’s writing, who was Greek/Gentile, wrote in a flavor that is somewhat foreign to our modern thought pattern. In another piece, Wright also says that though Paul was educated in Greek thought, the structure of his epistles still display the influences of an eastern mindset.

But to make this personal to our ministry, why is personal application stressed so much in testimony writing? I think that there is a genuine, good intention behind this because leaders want to help people grow. But sometimes I surmise that it is done out of fear that people will not grow if they do not ‘own’ what they are reading. This is true to some extent. But I think that this is a kind of knee-jerk reaction which actually short-circuits a healthy reading and subsequent interpretation of the text. In critiquing a written work, one is taught to read the article multiple times so that they can first ascertain what the writer is actually saying. In this way, terms can be thoroughly researched, any historical analysis done and so forth. Then a paraphrase is in order which will help the reader to digest the material further. After thorough understanding, then the actual critique comes. But if we’re forced to make a critique without the investigation, can we truly expect to come to a sound conclusion about the piece? Of course not, but we encourage students to this very thing all of the time. We encourage them to take short passages and extract some kind of personal application. Has this been totally ineffective? No, but we can do much better. For all of the leaders who have turned out to be spiritually potent, in one sense or another, how many students have left broken and disillusioned because of erroneous conclusions arrived at through this method? For me, this method has ceased to work and I think that Wright points out exactly why. It’s because the Bible itself is meant to augment our world view, not an application we have arrived at when viewing the Bible trough the lens of our particular faith tradition. I’m not saying that we should throw application writing out of the window, but there is so much more to be learned if we just take in the narrative that is set before us. For instance, when reading the OT, namely Isaiah, I am blown away how God uses godless nations to carry out his good, pleasing, sovereign will. What kind of God can do that? I can only conclude that He is utterly amazing; this kind of thing changes my heart on the spot. But if I quickly focus on how God punished the godless nations despite God using them for his purpose of judgment, then depending on my mood or spiritual state, I could internalize this and draw some fallacious or even harmful conclusions about myself or others. (Recall how some pastors commented that Hurricane Katrina was God’s judgement upon New Orleans; but my response is ‘don’t you think some Christians died in that event as well? So are you in the position to say that it was God’s judgment?’ cf. Lk 13:1-5)

One last note Joe, I realize that my point about critiquing an article sounded somewhat like your message from several years ago on how to write a proper testimony. How would you (or do you even feel as though you need to) revise that message? From what I remember, it was pretty sound; but in light of your current biblical view, what would you make of that sermon?

You’ve revealed here one of the main points in the “crux of the matter” regarding the UBF mindset: Do we really want/need the world to be filled with kamakazi Bible teachers who learn a quick word from the Bible and then teach it to the first college student they find on campus?

A few years ago I would have said, “Yes, what’s wrong with that?” The issue is that anyone who wants to “teach the Bible” must respect the Bible text. In this case, James (James 3:1) has to be taken into account, as well as the teaching from Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:34) which Hebrews confirms (Hebrews 8:11). Over the past 2 years, these books (not just the single quotations I listed here) caused me to change my thinking of myself as being a Bible learner.

Perhaps I’ll publish my testimony entitled “From a Bible Teacher to a Bible Learner” :)

We can see this in the 50th Anniversary “blue book”, where we see one direction given by Sarah’s message (a rather good, Biblical direction based on grace and love and Christian witness) and another, almost opposite direction, given by the other lectures (a loosely defined, smorgasbord-style direction based on nostalgic heritage and law).

I found the “Stand to Reason” article quite helpful, and more complete than my brief/minimilistic introduction post about reconciling James and Paul on my blog. In one sense, reconciling the two are like comparing one building (James) to an entire city (Paul), since Paul contributed far more to the Bible than James in terms of quantity.

I especially like these statements from the “Stand to Reason” blog you pointed to. I think they are relevant to this discussion:

“I have seen people twist themselves into theological pretzels trying to deal with this problem. There are a few unresolved conflicts in the Bible, but this is not one of them.”

and

“Saved by works? The Law gives us no hope because it has a built-in defeater to any attempt at justification by works: The Law demands perfection.”

Even though Apostle Paul was a “Pharisee of Pharisees”, he understood his own fallibility quite well.

“These guys are just wasting time, instead of feeding sheep. There are __ (5 to 50) thousand sheep on their campuses who are going to hell, and these guys are just taking and talking and ‘doing nothing’ for the work of saving lost souls.”

This is what I would say in response:

“Are you saying that a Christian should be so busy teaching the Bible to other people that he should have no time to seriously reflect on what the Bible is about or how to read it properly?”

But I fear that some traditionalists may think: “These guys are just wasting time, instead of feeding sheep. There are __ (5 to 50) thousand sheep on their campuses who are going to hell, and these guys are just taking and talking and ‘doing nothing’ for the work of saving lost souls.”

Boy, do I cringe hearing my own words from just a decade ago!

@Charles, We can add add Semi-Pellagianism to Calvinism and Arminianism.

Regarding the Law and imperatives, I wrote this before UBFriends started: http://benjamintoh.posterous.com/the-imperatives-are-based-on-the-indicatives

I still basically think that though most in UBF loves God because of the grace of Jesus, our teaching is often still primarily Law driven, mission driven, instructional and informative.

A result of such a way of preaching or Bible teaching is that no matter what we text we study from the Bible, the point always tends to be similar: Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, buckle down, “repent, be thankful, don’t complain, and work harder!”

Of course, these important teachings are in the Bible. But they are not of first importance. God is. Jesus is. The Holy Spirit is. The Trinity is. The Gospel is. Grace is.

“What’s to say that, after all the literature that’s been published in the centuries since then, we couldn’t convene a similar council and canonize other writings?”

I am quite sure that people will not be writing any more Scripture. The first three centuries AD were a remarkable time in the history of the church. Christians had to come to grips with some very difficult problems that the apostles didn’t solve for them. They didn’t have words like Incarnation and Trinity. They were trying to put into words (a) things for which there were no words and (b) things which deeply conflicted with the traditional Hebrew understanding of God and the Old Testament. Church councils met and hammered it out. The process seemed difficult, messy and embarassingly human. But I believe that the Holy Spirit was working in this process. It culminated in agreement on the major creeds (Apostles, Nicene and Chalcedonian) and the canonization of Scripture. That was a special time in the history of the Church and it will not be repeated. God has worked in other amazing ways since then in various parts of the church. Two great examples that you point out are Trent and Westminster. One could add Vatican II, Lausanne, etc. These events are important, but the situation is unlike the first three centuries. Things are different now that the church is divided.

“Is there a distinction between the Bible or the word of God and Jesus Christ, the Word of God?”

Yes, there is. The Bible is a written document, the second is a living person and a member of the Trinity. The former is a witness to the latter. We worship Christ but we don’t worship the Bible. Elevating the Bible to an object of worship is a big mistake. It’s called biblicism or bibliolatry. Interestingly, the Apostles’ Creed confesses faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and makes no statement about Scripture at all. The Nicene Creed is similar. The early Church fathers maintained a high view of Scripture but did not think it was necessary to put any statement about it in the creeds.

“Does this idea undermine Sola Scriptura?”

I guess it depends on what you mean by Sola Scriptura. That concept is often misunderstood and mischaracterized. One slight quibble I have with the UBF Statement of Belief is that it says that the Bible is our final authority in faith and practice. In my opinion, it would be better to say that the final authority rests in the God of the Bible, not in the Bible itself.

There are many fantastic resources about these topics. One of my favorites is an essay written in 1989 by N.T. Wright, “How Can the Bible Be Authoritative?” which is available for free at this website:

http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm

Take a look at that essay if you get a chance. I’d love to hear what you think.

Whenever we think that we’re ‘solid’ Bible teachers, perhaps this is a foreboding sign of just the opposite. The Pharisees held a similar view as this one (and I’m not accusing anyone in UBF of being akin to them). The Law as they interpreted it was somewhat straightforward; they knew the ins and outs with the Talmud serving as one of their intricate guides. But their view was actually dangerously outdated and their methodology severely outmoded. They missed the point that the law and the prophets illumined the path to the living God who we can never cease to grow in our knowledge of (that is, experiential and factual knowing).

That being said, I have a couple of questions concerning scripture that have been gnawing at me. If we do take Paul’s epistles as inspired writings communicated through a sinfully flawed man, then can we extrapolate this concept and say that we still have people writing scripture today? One objection to this is that via Revelation 22:18-19, that the entire canon of scripture is closed. But I take that verse to be contextually speaking of the book of Revelation itself. Closing the canon on scripture has not, historically speaking, been a neat and straightforward process. Canonicity runs into the same issue that you’ve raised in your article; fallible men, moved by the Holy Spirit nonetheless, chose which books to include in the canon and which to exclude (the Council of Trent for Catholics and the Westminster Confession of Faith for those in the Reform Movement). What’s to say that, after all the literature that’s been published in the centuries since then, we couldn’t convene a similar council and canonize other writings? If Jesus is the final authority on all things pertaining to God and man, then should we be afraid if our Bible does change throughout time? Put another way, is there a distinction between the Bible or the word of God and Jesus Christ, the Word of God? And if so, how do the two interact? Does this idea undermine Sola Scriptura?

“And I think that (correct me if I’m wrong) this is what this whole discussion is about. It’s not about theological nit-picking or swordplay or lording certain scriptural views over others, but about trying to perceive the true nature of God and man.”

Yes, I fully agree. This is what I want to do.

“…what exactly did Sarah Barry mean by that statement? How does one allow the Bible to interpret itself?”

When she said this to me, she was speaking about how the Bible is enigmatic and doesn’t fit neatly into any man-made interpretative system. The Bible is diverse and seems to have an exception to every rule.

“…although statements like these are uttered as well as “let the Holy Spirit lead our personal/corporate Bible study”, strong tones of evangelical fundamentalism as well as our own UBF subculture augments how we view/teach the Bible.”

Yes. There is some diversity within UBF but, generally speaking, I do hear strong tones of evangelical fundamentalism and the unique UBF subculture. I’m not against conservative evangelicalism per se, nor am I against the unique UBF subculture. These cultures have something important to say to the broader church. But they also have a great deal to learn from the broader church. What I don’t like is when a messenger seems unaware of or unwilling to question his own cultural bias, when he speaks carelessly on a debatable issue as if his interpretation is the only correct one. Voicing strong opinions is okay in my book, as long as the messenger is willing to concede that they are just opinions.

“What exactly does it mean, to us, to keep the Sabbath holy?”

Observing the Sabbath is not a law binding on Christians. I believe you know that Paul speaks to this in Colossians 2:16-17. I have observed the same thing as you: there is a great deal of ignorance in our church and many others about the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, and especially how the gospel relates to law. Although UBF prides itself on the frequency and intensity of its Bible study, there are some gaping holes in the way we teach and train people. I am a perfect example of this. After 25 years of UBF-style Bible study, I couldn’t give a thoughtful, coherent answer to the question of how the gospel relates to law. I suppose my ignorance wouldn’t have been so bad if I had been willing to admit that I was ignorant. But I pretended to be knowledgable. I acted as though questions like that were unimportant and brushed them aside.

“Until recently (I have seen a change as of late), many of the messages I’ve heard and the way I was taught personally, was mainly imperative-based.”

Yes. Whether people are willing to admit this or not, I believe that the articles on UBFriends over the last two years have helped to raise awareness of this issue. But there are still lots of imperatives being tossed around. This is symptomatic, I believe, of not deepening our faith in the gospel. Unless we continually question our own understanding of the gospel, we tend to assume that we already know what it is. We reduce the gospel to our shallow understanding and then try to evangelize others without allowing ourselves to be evangelized. We start viewing people as objects rather than subjects, and then we naively think that preaching imperatives will have an effect on them. It won’t.

“Does this type of smorgasbord exist? And if so how do we properly navigate/fix it? Or do we just let it work itself out naturally?”

UBF is a complex living system. There’s no way for human beings to fix it or manage it. God will have to do it. Living systems have an amazing ability to heal themselves, provided that leaders don’t try to hinder the process or control it to achieve their desired outcomes. In my opinion, the best way to participate in the process is to open up channels of dialogue, which is what we have been trying to do on this website. Refusing to participate in the discussion, marginalizing those who express differing opinions, etc. is a really bad idea.

I’ll just give a few brief examples. For instance, I’ve heard the statement ‘keep the Sabbath Holy’. This is said in the context of exhorting someone to be faithful to coming to worship service on Sunday and worshiping God with the congregation. This is not a bad exhortation, but is the Bible being accurately used in this instance? What exactly does it mean, to us, to keep the Sabbath holy? Furthermore, is this statement even for us? My impression is that the Mosaic Law was deemed obsolete and that we are now under a new covenant. In fact, Paul devoted an entire epistle in regard to this subject. Anyway, if we were to hold to that statement then shouldn’t we worship from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday? We don’t do this because historically we worship on Sunday, thus honoring our risen Lord, Jesus Christ. Hebrews explains that our Sabbath as Christians has taken on an entirely new meaning. But I feel as though in UBF we are not in unanimity concerning this and just in general how to bridge the gap between the OT and NT, not to mention how to view the NT in light of the intertestamental period. You talked about the danger of interpreting the NT through our modern day lenses, but I would say that we need to address our problems with viewing the OT properly as well. In my opinion, we take several passages out of context from the OT. Passages that were for Abraham, Sarah, Jeremiah and other biblical figures come to mind immediately. Of course, other churches are guilty of these kinds of unhelpful interpretations as well, so I am not singling our ministry out. But would you say that part of this attitude lies in the fact that perhaps we are more fundamentalist than some might want to say? We want to ‘take the Bible as it is’, almost in a literalist interpretive manner, but is this actually correct or helpful?

You also mention that our roots lie in mainline Presbyterianism. I can see that effect in how we have the construct of a board of elders or presbyters. Perhaps we have also taken from it the element of austerity or what Samuel Lee called a ‘manger spirit’ or ‘manger ministry’, for Presbyterians did not want an ornate building or lavish service to detract from worshiping God. But we also deviate from this faith tradition as well. Its roots lie in the Reform Movement, which was heavily influenced by the doctrinal views of Calvin. I would be hard-pressed to find many people in UBF who are familiar with Calvin’s views. In fact, I would go so far as to say that in many messages over the years I have heard a mixture of Calvinism and Arminianism. Until recently (I have seen a change as of late), many of the messages I’ve heard and the way I was taught personally, was mainly imperative-based. The conclusion from each message or study was ‘how then should you live?’ or ‘what should you do?’. Of course there are imperatives to heed, but we can also jump the gun, forcing others to make or accept bad interpretations or commands that are not there. Perhaps this imperative-based view comes from our strong evangelical slant; eventually we must go out and evangelize the nations. I’ve seen a mix of Calvinist and Arminian stances among our leaders, but most undoubtedly a strong fundamentalist/evangelical slant as well. And the subtle subculture nuances go without saying at this point. What do you think? Does this type of smorgasbord exist? And if so how do we properly navigate/fix it? Or do we just let it work itself out naturally?

Thanks for sharing. Your mention of Luther recalled something I discovered about Luther, as I too had heard that Luther “questioned the authority of the book of James claiming that it was not of apostolic authorship”, as you say.

So I think we should indeed “examine why great church founders, whom we are deeply influenced by, thought the opposite.” When I examine Luther, I find that he struggled greatly with the books of James and of Paul, but I find that Luther actually didn’t “think the opposite”, necessarily.

But one reason these “giants of faith” were indeed giants is because they were able (to an extent) admit they were wrong about something and were able to keep learning based on verses like Romans 3:4.

For example, Bainton wrote about Luther: “…in his preface to the New Testament of 1522 James was stigmatized as “an epistle of straw.” Once Luther remarked that he would give his doctor’s beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul. Yet he did not venture to reject James from the canon of Scripture, and on occasion earned his own beret by effecting the reconciliation.”

And also: “Faith,” he [Luther] wrote, “is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works there must be something amiss with faith.”

(Bainton, Here I Stand, Page 331)

James and Paul are not so difficult to reconcile actually: http://www.priestlynation.com/archives/1212

There is a danger in undermining the authority of Scripture. But there is also danger in resting one’s faith on dogmas of Scripture that are unsupportable and unbiblical because they do not accurately describe the Bible that we possess. I have not come to my views in a thoughtless way. I’ve done a large amount of reading on the subject and continue to do so, and I weigh the opinions that I encounter very carefully.

One idea that is popular among certain evangelicals is that inerrant/infallible Scripture implies that, when you read the gospels, all the words of Jesus are a perfect, error-free transcription of what actually came out of his mouth on each occasion, as if they were captured on an audio recording. That cannot be true. Jesus gave his teaching in Aramaic or possibly Hebrew, and the NT manuscripts are wtritten in Greek, so already we have a translation. The written form of the gospels synthesize the teachings of Jesus that were initially preserved in the oral traditions of the early church. I believe that the four gospels accurately and reliably portray who Jesus is. But I think it is wrong to expect them to conform to modern western notions of what historical accuracy ought to be. They are first-century documents, written under first-century standards and assumptions, which are very different from (not inferior to) 20th century assumptions.

A great deal of what I learned about how to approach the Bible, I learned from Sarah Barry. One of her favorite sayings is, “Let the Bible be the Bible.” She thought it was wrong to expect the Bible to conform to externally imposed systems of thought (e.g., premillenial dispensationalism). It’s okay, and even necessary, to approach the Bible with some theories and ideas of what to expect. But we should always be willing to allow those theories be challenged by the text. If our working assumptions about Scripture are unsupportable, then we should let them die. We need to interact with the Bible that we actually possess, not the Bible that we wish we had.

The theological roots of UBF lie in mainline Presbyterianism, not in populist 20th century American fundamentalism. The UBF Statement of Belief reflects those roots. If you say that most of the UBF congregation and leaders now hold an inerrancy/infallibility view of Scripture (perhaps you are right about that; I’m not sure) then this would actually be a drift away from UBF’s roots.

UBF has a very strong evangelical slant, which means that most of the congregation or leaders hold to an inerrancy/infallibility view of scripture. I know this to be true because of how highly we champion Bible study/teaching and hold to the phrase ‘the word of God has power to change people’. I hold to both of these sentiments, to a degree, but at the same time, I think that I personally need to re-examine these stances. Your post urges me to take a more balanced/realistic/researched view of what I’m actually espousing. I thought that your previous post on your hypothetical reflection and subsequent response was quite inflammatory (though perhaps that was not your intention). But I think that with this post you are running the risk of becoming anathema, for you are touching upon one of the holy grails of the evangelical movement. We don’t like being dragged into deep and uncharted waters, especially on this topic. You risk undermining our entire enterprise, (if that were possible!). You couldn’t mention these comments in a UBF/evangelical meeting without someone, at least one person, thinking that you are a heretic.

One question I would pose to those who think this way is, “Do you think that we have a perfectly communicated Bible in our hands today? Was the Bible originally written in modern English?” Much more could be said along the same vein as this question. I think that our view of scripture and the original language that it was penned in are evolving throughout time, as evidenced by the many ‘more precise’ translations that keep coming out. Perhaps the one truly infallible/inerrant thing is the revelation of God’s Word, that is Jesus Christ himself. I have heard of people coming to Christ without a Bible, e.g., through a vision of some sort or an audible call from one perceived later to be Jesus, namely in the Muslim/Arab world.

I like this post and I hope that many more will raise questions on the topic whilst still holding to a very high view of scripture.

During the mid- to late 20th century, declaring that Scripture is inerrant and infallible (usually stated in terms of original manuscripts) became a de facto litmus test for orthodoxy among conservative evangelicals. It was a stance that was prompted by the desire to protect core doctrines from being eroded by classic liberalism and atheism. In my opinion it was an overreaction. I see it as a peculiar byproduct of the 20th century American fundamentalist mindset. It was not what the early Church fathers believed. Major reformers, including Luther and Calvin, didn’t believe it either. In my opinion, Christians tend to use those words “inerrant and infallible” to indicate that they belong to a tribe that should be considered okay. It’s shorthand for “you can trust me, I’m not one of those dangerous liberal guys.” But when they verbalize what they actually believe, you find that it has very little correspondence to those in- words.

When I speak of my own views, I say that I maintain a high view of Scripture. I believe in divine inspiration. But I’m not sure exactly what that means. I avoid using those two in- words because I don’t think they describe the Bible that we actually have. The Bible contains a fair amount of material that could be considered factual error. For example, Mark 4:31 says, “It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds on earth.” Ask any botanist and you will be told that there are plenty of seeds smaller than a mustard seed. In my mind, this is not a big deal. It has no impact whatsoever on the veracity of what is being taught in that parable. But it violates the plain English meaning of those in- words. To come up with reasonable definitions of those in- words to apply to Scripture requires so much nuance and qualification that I don’t think those words are useful. When people stand up to argue for the inerrancy and infallibity of Scripture, I don’t know what they are fighting for. I sense that they are still fighting the old liberal versus conservative culture war of the last century, unaware that the landscape and culture have changed to the point where those battles are now irrelevant and quite damaging to the Christian witness.

Perhaps you noticed that UBF does not officially believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. When Sarah Barry wrote the UBF Statement of Faith, she scrupulously avoided those words. In my opinion, it was a very wise move. I like the UBF Statement of Faith, and I wish that more people would take it seriously.

I’m also not convinced that every Bible study and sermon needs to be Christo-centric and Christo-telic, unless those terms are understood in a broad sense. If you take too narrow a view of those criteria, many of the teachings of Jesus wouldn’t pass the test.

I am in total agreement with you about the way you and I have been taught to study the Bible, as described in every UBF Daily Bread booklet. Though not wrong, it is certainly not complete and comprehensive, as though that is the only way or the main way of looking at Scripture. I embrace 2 phrases regarding what Bible study and preaching should always be: Christo-centric and Christo-telic (Jn 5:39, 46; Lk 24:27, 44), which I believe is what you alluded to.

If we do not do this, we will inevitably and invariably manifest many of the cult-like, sectarian, tribal, exclusive, elitist, offensive, uncontextualized tendencies that many people are beginning to start addressing in our ministry.

You may be interested in this book that Scot McKnight has blogged about (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/08/07/finding-the-apostle-paul/) regarding 4 Christians from 4 different traditions in their evaluation of Paul, edited by Michael Bird. The 4 traditions are Reformed, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310326958/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0310326958&linkCode=as2&tag=musionscieand-20