I am going to make a few posts that might provoke a ‘this is too far’ kind of response. No worries… fixed points help us travel further than we might otherwise. I walked up a mountain in Italy – higher that Ben Nevis (Scotland) with our dog. It had some paths, but not very clear, and I certainly got myself somewhat lost… however there was a farm house that I had noted on the way up that acted as my guide, and showed me I was now the wrong side of a valley going back down the side of the adjacent mountain. OK – get the point? We can wander and get lost, but if we keep some fixed points we will be able to make a few adjustments in our wanderings.
This first post is one where I think I am no where near in danger of wandering off on another mountain and finding that I have no way of knowing how to get home! I will put it boldly first and then invite you to wander a bit with me:
We have to go beyond the Bible, or
the Bible is not the final word.
Put boldly like that it is amazing what reactions can come, and then I think – and those who object? Why then be happy with ‘pulpits’, ‘ordination’, ‘bishops’, ‘seminaries’ etc. Somewhat beyond the Bible methinks. So we really should not object. Most of what is acceptable that is beyond the Bible comes through tradition, ‘church’ tradition. I want to push in a different direction, and I want to do so as I see developing revelation and understanding within Scripture itself. Very evident with Jesus – you have heard it said, but I say to you… And the change with Jesus is beyond profound. He was either deceived at an incredible level (the Scriptures pointing to him!) or he has to be placed central, with Scripture moving out of the category of timeless truths disembodied from history / culture, to a record of an unfolding story of a people of faith on a journey recording that journey with at times a stronger and at other times a fainter line pointing to the revelation of God in Jesus, and therefore necessarily pointing away from itself. A sign is not the arrival point and at times signs can be confusing (just ask us we tried to follow google maps these past weeks at some crazy junctions!). We can find ourselves with a ‘phew we are still on the right path and direction’ to other times ‘well that was a bit of a dirt path, but here we are back on track’. That is the richness of Scripture – the internal disagreements are so enlightening as they tend to be the ones that expose our personal internal disagreements. (Could this be why the entrance to the kingdom that we favour is ‘you must be born again’ over ‘go sell all you have’? Both statements spoken to an individual – one religious and one rich.)
Surface, and at times deeper than at surface level, disagreements within the pages should alert us to look deeper than wave a few favourite verses around. The God who gave instructions about the death penalty certainly did not abide by those instructions in the Cain / Abel story (nor in the ‘repeat’ in the Jesus / Barabbas story). And as mentioned above – the Jesus approach that overturned / went beyond Scripture with his ‘but I say to you’.
The Gentile mission (Paul) went beyond what they understood. They went beyond Scripture. Of course that can be justified with ‘the Scriptures are apostolic’. I remember well the various lectures on the New Testament where the big issue was of seeking to root the books in either ‘written by an apostle’ or ‘someone so connected to the apostles that they are writing with apostolic authority’. Why? Seems that was a belief imposed on Scripture not coming from Scripture. And this has come through in certain charismatic views of prophecy where (I paraphrase) the apostles of the NT write without error and are the partner to the prophets of the Old Testament – thus prophecy of the NT is not at the same level as prophecy of the Old… (Not substantiated by the testimony of Scripture, so friends of the ‘Gospel Coalition’ this one does not get my vote and I suspect it is supported by (yet again) an imposition on Scripture.) Oh how I love to pontificate!
Moving forward quickly… to be biblical we need to be immersed in, but not drowned by, the text(s) and allow the forward flow to carry us to and through uncomfortable territory. We can be carried beyond Scripture, but it has to be on the same trajectory; we might repeat parts of the story, but a continual repetition might simply lock us in a ‘chapter’ that has already been written. If I am unable to recall earlier ‘chapters’ I will lose the plot, the story. I need the fixed points, the characters, the drama, the flow. But then?
The tension is that the biblical ‘story’ (story-line) holds the answers as they point to Jesus, but if we use the story (the text(s)) to be the end in themselves we will use yesterdays answers and seek to apply them to today’s issues. And on the latter issue highly dangerous when we try and explain biblical discussion and uproot the discussion from the story – such as with the cross of Jesus and the ‘wrath’ of God.
Where could this take us… maybe quite a bit of wandering, but come on there are mountains to be climbed and sight to be gained of a landscape that we have not seen clearly into.
I am provoked by Paul – apostolic writings if ever there were any! He saw ekklesia. Did he see what might lie beyond his passion to get an ekklesia in every place where there was already an ekklesia. What should follow after (I assume there was an ‘after’) there was a community who understood they were (with all their faults – that is grace!) the chosen ones to take on board the future shape, culture and health of what was within their territory? Did he have sight on that? But probably more importantly do we? And then we could explore what territory might mean today – simply geographical? Boundaries and times are in the biblical story – now where might we wander if we keep our eyes on the fixed points?
Hi Martin ✨
You write about the “fixed points” and sticking to them…..
What are these for you, and are these the same for everyone?
Paul’s letter can be provoked, and even more so me as a woman in the Christian family.
What and who are we, the women? Some claim “torn verses” out of context that we should not lead anything “what so ever” and others claim that the women have a prophetic role, taken out of context. It has been difficult for me in the Christian context to “find a meaning” as a woman in the Christian context. Many women have chosen to leave the traditional Pentecost contexts and free churches in Sweden, as they mostly offer condemnation, belittlement, and a relegation to keep quiet or sing a nice song.
Now I can’t sing well and the strong prophetic in me has sometimes chosen to say….
Nor am I the “archetype” of women who “succeed” in the Swedish church elite…. What are the points of reference, the ones you think are worth holding on to?
Best regards ✨
Yalda Linn
Yalda… a HUGE thank you for the response. I will try and reply while realising that I am (gender-wise) part of the dominating problem. First in going beyond Scripture / Scripture no the final word we can and must go beyond Paul. I think (cos I like to defend him!!!) that he was pushing beyond his culture so setting a trajectory. ‘I want the women to learn’ being his instruction in Timothy not ‘and not teach’… he seems to clash with the culture there – with domineering (emasculating) men. Either simply cultural or it was with the Diana-temple culture in view – 3 levels of priestesses and 1 of castrated men. So I think all the ‘wives submit’ stuff is 1) in the context of ‘submit to one another’ and 2) apologetic into the Roman world where they were very worried about new religions. I think in his day he sought to a) connect to the wider culture but not b) simply to imitate it… anyway my little defence!!
The feminine has always been under attack and patriarchy has ruled – and ruled within the Bible (wrongly – and not a reflection of God!!). A woman unclean for 7 days if she gives birth to a male (and this applies to Mary who made a sin offering for giving birth to Jesus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) but unclean 14 days if giving birth to a girl – GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!
We can argue from creation – male and female. But really we need to go to new creation – neither male and female. All that has gone. How then is that expressed? Perhaps into an unenlightened context we MIGHT reluctantly go ‘we have to compromise’ but we cannot copy. We have to push beyond the culture.
You mention the church contexts. A prophetic response has to be to walk. How would we advocate a response to slavery? There comes a time when we can no longer say ‘the Bible advocates slavery’ (which it does), and simply says this is where it is at. That is no longer acceptable. We have hit this stage now with women – if anyone is in Christ there is new (feminised) creation.
My fixed points – not sure how many but two hold me in: the authority of the trajectory of Scripture and the unique revelation that comes through Jesus. So Jesus as the revelation / the word of God… and scripture as the witness to that revelation.
Loved your comment and deeply grateful for it.
I suppose it depends on how far we wander from fundamentals and just how subjective our discernment is? Maybe we could become deceived as Paul taught if we’re not careful. That’s really on my mind at moment? Not really pushing back much though I really like your vision.
Thanks Joanna – your comment is key. How far?
This sounds promising Martin – let’s see how far the elastic will stretch! My observation is that ‘progressive’ exploration is often more defined – not so much by how it differs from orthodox interpretations of scripture but – suspiciously – how much it resembles the current trends and values of the world.