….on ‘Open Bible Principles
So, Steve Chalke has been at it again – rattling cages and shaking foundations as he has done before. His popular appeal means that he will draw people into the debate who would usually be at, or beyond, the fringes of any discussion on hermeneutics. Not only that, but I wholeheartedly endorse any call for a truly open discussion of the Bible which eschews fear and allows doubt to pull up a seat at the table of faith. As a pastor I have devoted much time to facilitating open discussions of and around the Bible, and will continue to do so.
That said, I find some of the principles in Steve’s paper too over-simplified to be helpful. Their lack of nuance in an article which calls for subtle and thoughtful engagement needles a little.
In response to his 20 ‘open Bible principles’ here are 20 questions. Some, as you will see, are more serious than others.
- Is any text sacred if we believe it to be outmoded?
- Does the call for us to respond ’as local and national communities and as a global society as a whole’ underestimate the importance of context in interpretation?
- Is the description of the Bible as a ‘collection of texts’ not how most of us see it anyway?
- Is there any such thing as a ‘popular understanding’ of inerrancy or infallibility?
- Talk of stretching humanity’s ‘spiritual imagination’ is captivating – but will this come from a discussion centred around any one text?
- Will contemporary Biblical literacy be enhanced by open discussion without a prior (and often absent) historical awareness?
- What exactly does a ‘global project’ of Bible discussion look like, when we all end up interpreting it on the ground in context?
- If the canon has not been finalised because some dilemmas were outside the experience of its writers, then why does the paper call for ‘open BIBLE principles’ anyway?
- Can we not read the Bible as a ‘static record’ and have a dynamic encounter with it? Must we choose?
- Is this really a call to negotiate a truce with Scripture by forgiving it for its humanity?
- Can we find a way to honour those in this historical dialogue from whom we diverge?
- Is this caveat about ‘unwise contributions’ an apologia for this article, for the discussion which will follow, or for other things?
- Is it fair or helpful to set up a dichotomy between Jesus and the Bible, when we cannot encounter the one without the historical witness of the other?
- What , exactly, is the ‘shape of our biblical framework’ given all that has gone before in the paper?
- Is there any chance we could embark on a serious and thoughtful engagement without the use of the phrase “provisionality of our thinking”? (Sounds like something from Jon Plowman’s “Twenty Twelve”)
- Can all who respond to Steve’s paper please extend the ‘grace and patience’ for which he calls here?
- How can we ensure that grace and mercy in theological discussion best echoes the grace and mercy which led us to have it in the first place?
- Is it possible to talk about a ‘sacred dialogue’ without further consideration of the inspirational role of the Holy Spirit in the ongoing discussion?
- Making the Bible “accessible to all” is a huge task – and one which will not be complete as long as the work of Bible translation continues. I wonder whether those engaged in that task have particular insights to bring to this discussion?
- Is there any reason to assume that a ‘life lived well’ is to be considered apart from ‘spiritual formation’?
“Twenty questions” was originally a parlour game, which then found its way onto radio, and from there into a TV format. The latter lasted only for a short while. Maybe the intimacy of a captivating discussion wilted on the wider stage. I wonder what will happen to this discussion? Discuss.
Image: Wikimedia commons
