Comments on "The Idolatrous Use Of Scripture"

I should say more about the last post "The Idolatrous Use of Scripture." The content of that post is as follows:

“Scripture interprets scripture. Yes. First, the scriptures reveal Christ. Second, the scriptures submit to Christ.

The scriptures are always a means to an end. Christ is that end. The authority of the scriptures derives from that same end. Scripture becomes an idol whenever it serves itself or serves another end. And as an idol, the book has no authority. The history of humanity after Christ is scarred from the idolatrous use of the scriptures.         

Scripture interprets scripture. Yes. : “Scripture interprets scripture” is a common enough phrase. It is used to described a method whereby obscure passages are to be interpreted in the light of those that are clear, or less obscure (see Westminster Confession of Faith Book of Confessions 6.009, pg 123 see here. I will keep my observations within the confessions of the Reformed tradition). This phrase may also be used as a reminder that any given passage has a larger canonical context within which it must cohere. I have no issue with these understandings, but difficulties are close at hand.

We get much closer to the issue when we consider Calvin’s notion that scripture is self-authenticating or carries "its own evidence along with it." (autopiston, see for instance John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion I.vii.5, p.55 here). Again, this is acceptable but it needs a qualification Calvin does not address.

So what is the issue? In short, the distinction between the Word and the words is not made explicit. So for instance, if one were to read the confessions within the Reformed tradition and observe the use of the phrase “word of God” they will find the phrase is applied indiscriminately to both Christ and the scriptures.

In all fairness, the identification of the two has not been explicitly stated either. When one looks at the historical record, specifically since the Reformation, it becomes obvious that the waters are muddied. Although Christ and the scriptures are in no way understood to be identical (think Identity of Indiscernibles found here), they are often treated as if the two are interchangeable. This creates some difficulties.

The possible exception to this critique would be Karl Barth and “The Confession of 1967” (p. 252 here). His influence on C67 had potential to dispel the confusion. But in fact C67 simply stirs up waters already muddy. Specifically, Barth applies the phrase ‘word of God’ to 1)Christ as the revelation of God, 2) the proclamation of Christ, as well as 3) the written words (see here). And this varied threefold application shows in C67:

“The one sufficient revelation of God is Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate, to whom the Holy Spirit bears unique and authoritative witness through the Holy Scriptures, which are received and obeyed as the word of God written. The Scriptures are not a witness among others, but the witness without parallel. The church has received the books of the Old and New Testaments as prophetic and apostolic testimony in which it hears the word of God and by which its faith and obedience are nourished and regulated" ( italics are mine, Book of Confessions 9.27 p.257 here).   

Anyway, the issue is not the phrase itself. The issue is that there is no clear and explicit distinction made between Christ and the scriptures. And so, there is no clear understanding of their relationship to one another. The failure to make this distinction clear, I believe, has often resulted in an unconscious fear that if one aspect of scripture (i.e. a particular passage, command, idea, etc.) is denied, then somehow Christ is being denied as well. Or, this can result in enough ambiguity that the value of making the distinction clear is neither understood nor enjoyed. There’s our problem in a rather large nutshell.

First, the scriptures reveal Christ. This is the preeminent function of the scriptures in the life of the individual Christian as well as in the life of the Christian community. The scriptures, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, reveal Christ. I should say further that Christ in turn reveals the heart of God, the love of God (i.e. the Father).

More to the point, it is in the scriptures that we discover the person, work, and teachings of Jesus Christ (from here referred to as PWTC). Assume we ask, “Is scripture necessary and sufficient for discovering PWTC?” We might respond that the scriptures are necessary for discovering PWTC, but the scriptures understood as acting towards this end are not, in themselves, sufficient. The scriptures serve this end only with the illumination of the Holy Spirit. And I dare say that part of how the Holy Spirit guides the interpretation and understanding of the scriptures is through the believing community. Scripture offers us a wonderful picture of this process in the account of Philip and the Ethiopian (Acts 8:26-40 here).

Philip, a member of a believing community, is guided by the Spirit to an Ethiopian (we don't know his name) while the Ethiopian reads from a passage in Isaiah. Philip asks him, "'Do you understand what you are reading?' He replied, 'How can I, unless someone guides me?'" "Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture, he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus."  For our purposes the important point of interest is that the preeminent function of the scriptures, in this instance the passage from Isaiah, is to reveal Christ. This revelation depends on a concerted effort that includes not only the scriptures but also a believing member(s) of the community, the Holy Spirit, and the proclamation.

Second, the scriptures submit to Christ. So far what we have said is not all that controversial. However, the statement we now consider may in fact be controversial. I think the controversial nature of saying that “the scriptures submit to Christ” comes from a common enough tendency to assume that the scriptures stand alone, submit to no one, and in fact are their own authority. And yet, there is something that rings intuitively true about the notion that the scriptures are subordinated to Christ.

But my intention in making this assertion is not simply to establish the status of the scriptures in relation to Christ, but to assert that in fact PWTC is the key to interpreting and using the scriptures. Again, once Christ is revealed; then the person, work, and teachings of Christ become the key to how we understand and use the scriptures.

I am particularly concerned, at this point, with how we use the scriptures. How do we use the scriptures as a guide to how we live as well as a guide to how we justify our actions? Why is it Christians do not (and have not) taken their own children who drink too much, eat too much, and generally disobey parental advice before the elders of the community to have them stoned to death? This is a command we find in the scriptures and yet we ignore this. Why do feel we can ignore this command? In short, because we know (if only implicitly) that this is in no way in line with PWTC. And so in this instance we use PWTC as a guide for how to understand and use the scriptures. And yet, we have no qualms about doing so. Unfortunately, as we will see, we have not been so wise throughout the history of how Christians use the scriptures.

The scriptures are always a means to an end. Christ is that end. Christians many times implicitly understand (but do not always explicitly consider or even say) that the scriptures are a means to an end. Nonetheless, at times Christians will treat the scriptures and speak of the scriptures as if the scriptures are their own end. So we sometimes have this strange notion that somehow the scriptures lead back to the scriptures.

The scriptures are a means to an end, and that end is Christ. They serve this end in two ways. First, as noted, the scriptures reveal Christ. Second, as noted, they are a means whereby individuals and communities become like Christ. Christ reveals the love of God, and in turn Christ becomes the key by which we interpret and use the scriptures to become participants in that love.

The authority of the scriptures derives from that same end. I think many Christians, if pushed in a corner, would say that the authority of the scriptures comes from God. But we don’t spend much time in those corners. So the idea that God is the basis of the authority of the scriptures is understand in various ways that may not all be compatible.

There are various understandings of the authoritative nature of the scriptures. In my opinion they fall along a spectrum with two extremes. On the one extreme we have those that argue the scriptures are their own authority. On the other extreme we have those that argue the community confers authority on the scriptures by way of consensus so that the community decides what is authoritative and what is not.

If I were to place my own understanding along the spectrum I would place it somewhere in the middle (which may seem like I am ‘poisoning the well’ and for that I apologize). First, I would say that ultimately God is the sole source for the authoritative nature of the scriptures. Second, I would say that, for us as Christians, Christ is the representative of that authority or eminent revelation of that authority. What gives the scriptures their authority is precisely the fact that Jesus Christ is alive. The resurrected Christ, as the revelation of God to us, is the one who confers authority upon the scriptures.

To be very clear I am not referring to the idea of the resurrection. The idea of the resurrection may be understood as authoritative for my more progressive brothers and sisters, but that is not what I am referring to. For me personally, the authority for the scriptures is the living, resurrected Christ; so that my concern is that I understand and use the scriptures in such a way that I obey a Person, not an idea.

My more conservative brothers and sisters who claim that scripture is its own authority simpliciter are simply mistaken. And their critics who claim ‘vicious circle’ in response are correct. The authority for the Christian scriptures is a living Person; not an idea, not the words themselves, and not a community’s convention. I will go so far as to say that if Christ is dead, then the book has no authority for me.

In the scriptures, Jesus is more than willing to abrogate a command found in the scriptures for the sake of the divine love he came to reveal. His rejection of the ‘eye for an eye’ ethic would be one prominent example (see here). The fact that he is raised verifies his authority to do this.

Scripture becomes an idol whenever it serves itself or serves another end. And as an idol, the book has no authority. Here we arrive at another candidate for controversy. I don’t think Christians are accustomed to thinking of the scriptures and idolatry in conjunction. But given what we have determined in terms of the authority and end of the scriptures, we can delimit a proper and improper use of the scriptures.

Any time the scriptures are used for some end other than Jesus Christ the book ceases to function as it is intended and becomes an idol. Likewise, whenever the book falls under the authority of someone or something other than Christ it has abandoned its post and is again just a book that serves a foreign end.

This observation should give Christians pause whenever they sense they are treating the scriptures as an end in themselves or whenever they are willing abrogate love for the sake of maintaining some kind of scriptural purity that has in fact become master. Keep in mind Christ reveals the love of God and in turn expects the same of us. If the scriptures are used in such a way this love is abrogated, then the book has become an idol.

The history of humanity after Christ is scarred from the idolatrous use of the scriptures. There is not a more lamentable example of the idolatrous use of scripture than the history of atrocities committed by Christians and (erroneously) justified by the scriptures.

It is common to hear the following argument from some critics of Christianity: Christianity is illegitimate, and in fact dangerous, due to the simple fact that the content of its holy book is both illegitimate and dangerous. The bible contains example after example of horrendous acts. This is the book that informs the Christian Faith and in fact has produced a history of horrendous acts. Therefore, again, Christianity is illegitimate and dangerous.

This argument creates great difficulty for my more conservative brothers and sisters. They have to do back flips to somehow argue that scripture is authoritative and yet does not condone evil acts on the part of Christians. That’s the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that my conservative brothers and sisters feel justified in doing whatever is found in the scriptures simply because it is found in the scriptures.

The situation is not quite so difficult for my more progressive brothers and sisters. They simply agree with the critic’s argument.

Given what has been established in this post my response is as follows: Yes, there are horrible things found in the scriptures. One obvious example would be the last verse in Psalm 137 (found here). And yes, Christians have done horrible things and justified them directly or indirectly using the scriptures. One obvious example would be torture of heretics during the Medieval Inquisition (see here). But, this in no way shows that the Christian faith is illegitimate or dangerous. This only shows that this particular use of scripture is illegitimate and dangerous because it does not submit to and serve the love of God as revealed in Jesus Christ.

But the great value of explicitly establishing the distinction between the scriptures and Jesus Christ is not merely apologetic. Making this explicit distinction serves to clarify the function of the scriptures in the life of Christians and their communities. It serves as a safeguard against repeating the injustices of the past. And, it allows Christians to take a reasoned approach to the scriptures. In other words, we don’t have to act as if by denying one aspect of them (say, the last verse in Psalm 137) we are also denying Christ. 

Again, I don't think any of this is really new. We seem to at least implicitly recognize this distinction in some instances, yet in others we do not. I believe the Christian community as a whole would benefit from a further clarification. Establishing a proper understanding of the relationship between Christ and the scriptures allows Christians to use the scriptures as a means to serve Christ; and thereby, as a means by which the love of God is revealed to the world.

Possible Objection:

We have not sufficiently analyzed PWTC. For convenience and pedagogical purposes we could express PWTC in the form of the twofold command of love (i.e. love God and love others). That may suffice in terms of guiding the use of scripture. But, a complete analysis would include much more. Even so, it may be argued that once analyzed, we will find that PWTC runs up against the very complaint it seeks to solve. Aren’t the scriptures the very means by which we discover PWTC? Mustn’t the community interpret PWTC? Don’t we still end up with some variation of our extremes by excessively and inordinately affirming either the words or the readers? Do we end up back where we started? Yes we do, if in fact Jesus is dead and not raised.