If there’s one thing I’ve learned from working with mainline Protestants over the years, it’s that we’re really good at identifying what we don’t believe about scripture. Basically, the claim I have heard over and over again is that we don’t read it the way “fundamentalists” read it. Okay…. Fair enough. That, however, is a very uninteresting statement. It’s much rarer, and more difficult, to describe positively and specifically how we think scripture functions.
To be fair, some people have tried to do this. N. T. Wright, Marcus Borg, and Adam Hamilton, for example, haveall offered positive proposals about the inspiration and authority of scripture. There is an excellent book by Christopher Bryan on the subject called, And God Spoke: The Authority of the Bible for the Church Today. (Please note: by referring to “positive proposals,” I’m not saying that I necessarily think they are right, but that such proposals involve affirmations, rather than simply negations.)
Wright and Bryan, both Anglicans, will take more traditionalist positions on the Bible, though without affirming plenary, verbal inspiration. They will be popular among moderate evangelicals, conservative mainliners, and Anglicans. Borg’s proposals have been extremely influential in mainline congregations. In a nutshell, he sets up the assumptions of modernity as normative criteria by which to evaluate whether or not a particular claim is veridical. (See Fred Schmidt’s critique here.) Hamilton argues that the inspiration of scripture is the same in nature and degree as the inspiration of people today. The authority of scripture lies in two claims: (1) it was written closer to the events described, and (2) it reflects the normative decisions of the early church regarding the set of books that would be useful for Christian teaching.
In the United Methodist Church, our Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith affirm the sufficiency and truthfulness of scripture for teaching what is necessary for salvation. In case you’re interested, I blogged about these passages from our doctrinal standards here.
For John Wesley, the Bible’s function was soteriological. It taught us about how we could achieve salvation. Wesley was at times drawn to what we would today call inerrancy or infallibility, though such affirmations depended upon his reading scripture through a particular theological framework, the “general tenor” of scripture. (See Scott Jones’s book, John Wesley’s Conception and Use of Scripture. I’d also recommend a book that Joel Green and I edited, Wesley, Wesleyans, and Reading Bible as Scripture.)
In addition to these positions, there are some mainline Protestants who have embraced doctrines such as plenary, verbal inspiration. In the absence of sufficient positive proposals from within their own traditions, they have taken on doctrines of scripture from traditions that they see as more stable, rooted, and dynamic.
All this is to say, there are some options for thinking through positive descriptions of the nature and function of scripture, but the denominations themselves don’t seem to have offered many clear proposals about what scripture is, what it does, or how we should approach it. Perhaps I’m simply misinformed about other traditions, but in The United Methodist Church we are at sea on this issue.
As a point of departure for further conversation, let me offer a few affirmations, based on our doctrinal standards, which might help folks articulate what we believe about the Bible:
1. Scripture is the primary source of divine revelation in our tradition. Other claims to divine revelation should be tested against scripture.
2. Everything we need to know to receive salvation is in the Bible.
3. The Bible is the true guide for Christian faith and practice.
4. The Holy Spirit helps us to understand and apply scripture to our lives.
5. Christian tradition, such as is found in the creeds, helps to interpret scripture for teaching the historic faith of the church.
6. Reason and the experience help us to understand scripture, but on matters of salvation, and matters of faith and practice related to salvation, they should not contradict scripture.
What do you think? Are these basic claims about the Bible the beginning of a workable doctrine of scripture?
David F. Watson 
#5 (in reality, #6) needs to be fleshed out more, or perhaps it is simply too early.
I don’t get it.
Joel, I will respond in more detail later, but thanks for pointing out the mistake in my numbering. I have fixed it now.
Dr. Watson,
Overall, I do not disagree – except when it comes to #6. I look forward to future discussions.
Joel, I’ve just now had time to respond to some comments. If #2 is true, doesn’t #6 also have to be true? Our knowledge of salvation is a matter of divine revelation. The primacy of scripture would mean that other sources of divine revelation are subordinate. If we are making claims about salvation that contradict scripture, even if based on reason and experience, that’s a big problem, isn’t it?
I much prefer the soteriological approach to scripture over biblical inerrancy. (I grew up with the sola scriptura paradigm and only through studying at UTS felt free to adopt a new understanding of scripture). My one question in all of this is why have we closed the canon? Having knowledge of the creeds and so forth set down by church fathers this still seems confusing. Why is it that, after subjecting other writings to scripture, we do not also allocate said writings into canon? I can only assume that it is for the same (or similar) reason that there is little probability of the protestant church rejoining the Catholic church…
Blake, thanks for your comment. During the first five centuries Christians made decisions about which books would stand alongside the Jewish Bible as true means of teaching the Church’s faith and developing Christian doctrine. We have long believed that this process was guided by the Holy Spirit. Were we to reopen the canon, it would mean that the Spirit’s revelation to us through scripture was somehow deficient, and that we need additional resources to receive the message of salvation handed on through the apostolic faith. This would undermine an important Christian claim: that the message of salvation entrusted to us is not only sufficient, but perfect, for leading us into the life of God.
I much prefer N.T. Wright’s summary in (I think this is the title) SCRIPTURE AND THE AUTHORITY OF GOD.
The bible is the true story of how God became King.
If by Salvation you mean the restoration of all things through Christ, fine; If by Salvation you mean how we get to heaven, then you’re gonna elicit a hugh chorus of yawns.
Rev. Dr. Watson,
FYI, I intend to use this blog post during a 3-week course that I’m about to teach at my church about the Bible and how we interpret it. It’s intended to help people who intend to take the the Covenant Bible Study that my senior pastor and a layperson will jointly teach. In the course I’m teaching, we’re reading excerpts of Hamilton’s Making Sense of the Bible. I think this post could help some folks who have doubts/questions about Hamilton’s conclusions.
As always, thanks for your thoughts. Your blog helps bridge the gap between academia and the church, in my opinion.
Thanks, Joseph. I’m really glad the blog is helpful, and this post in particular. Hamilton’s book certainly has its strengths, but I think his conceptions of the inspiration and authority are underdeveloped.
Here we go again…the clash over authority and worldviews begins…competing interests and discounters busily clutching at the Bible as booty in the struggle over lordship of the church.