Critical Reading of Scripture is a Good Thing

My take on the Bible differs significantly from that of many other Christians. Some Christians assume that the Bible represents the actual Word of God as dictated to its human authors. Every part of the Bible, therefore, has equal weight. For example, the epistles of Paul would be just as important as the teachings of Jesus.

I don’t take this view at all. I give the greatest weight to the teachings of Jesus and the narratives of the Gospels and less weight to the letters of Paul. I hold Peter above Paul since Peter actually knew Jesus and participated in his ministry, whereas Paul knew Jesus only by way of the miraculous encounter on the road to Damascus.

What I know about the origin of the New Testament is that it was compiled several centuries after the time of Jesus by certain Church leaders, and that they sought to include the most authentic and widely accepted texts in the collection of sacred writings. Presumably, they excluded those texts that might undermine orthodox positions of the authority of the Church. Moreover, a number of other accounts may not have survived the first few centuries. I reckon that the compilers of the canon did the best they could with what was available to them and in light of their own agendas. I do not reckon that they were infallible, however, in this enterprise. It is conceivable that a heretofore undiscovered text might be found and considered as authoritative as any of the texts in the canon.

The letters of Paul would naturally be part of the canon since he was an important early Christian teacher, and his views would be instructive. Moreover, a number of these letters were preserved. This does not mean that his every utterance should be considered tantamount to the Word of God. Paul was an important teacher, certainly, but he was not divine and certainly does not compare in authority with Jesus Himself. Indeed, other important Christian teachers over the centuries or teaching even now, might be considered just as authoritative as Paul. Certainly, such teachers can instruct and inspire in life changing ways even though their writings have never been appended to the canon.

I don’t like to quarrel with folks who choose to regard Scripture as the inerrant Word of God, and I do not wish to be divisive. So I rarely discuss my own views on the Bible in the company of literalists. Some people seem to need a Bible that was dictated by God, and they are not interested in the work of interpretation and critical reading. But, in my view, a religion predicated on one set of early teachings presumed to be divinely dictated and immune to reinterpretation is doomed to irrelevancy. If the Koran was dictated by Allah, it cannot be reinterpreted, and Islam is stuck forever in the 7th Century. A literalist reading of the New Testament fixes Christianity forever in the 1st Century in a very specific cultural and historical context. Such a Christianity is a dead thing.

For my part, I trust in the guidance of the Holy Ghost to permit me to read the Bible critically with a view to understanding the message and ministry of Jesus. If it seems to me, in consultation with the Holy Ghost, that Paul is off the mark, I am free, thank God, to read Paul critically. I am happy that I live in a time and place where I need not fear being the guest of honor at an auto da fe on account of my religious beliefs.