The Bible Is Not A Book

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" 1 Thessalonians v.21

This verse was the text on which William Ellery Channing, Unitarian minister, built his Batimore sermon "Unitarian Christianity" in 1819. In the sermon he laid out a case for using reason in interpreting scripture, and in his opinion, that precluded such theologies as the Trinity, or the divinity of Jesus Christ. Most importantly, he wasn't insisting that we use reason for its own sake, but as the best tool for inspiring us to live righteously. We need a God, that inspires us in head and heart to use our hands. Or in other words, that which ought to direct our actions (Organizing Principle) must take hold of our whole person.

As with so much else, what we get out of the Bible depends on what we bring to it. The greatest advice I was given on entering theological school, wary of the biblical tradition and skeptical of Christianity, was to read with critical mind and open heart. There are many expressions of Christianity, and many ways of reading the Bible. In the tradition of which I am part, understanding literary and historical contexts are important in reading the Bible, and I got plenty of that in theological school. I have spoken to several ministers (in other denominations) who have told me they could not possibly teach their congregations what they learned in seminary. That is why I am a Unitarian Universalist.

In a more ecumenical spirit I would affirm that the purpose of our reading is to participate in and advance God's Kingdom of love and justice until the day when God brings it to fruition. If historical and literary criticism of the Bible get in the way of this, then there is something wrong. But, for me, reading the Bible in these contexts is a way into devotional reading.

The Bible is not a book. By this I mean, first, that the Bible is not merely a book, but holds a special authoritative status for Christians - even if we cannot agree on how to read it! And second, the Bible is not a single book, but a collection of books, each with its own genre and worldview.

The first assertion is likely to be agreeable to nearly all who would identify as Christians, but there is more to be said nonetheless.  The Universalist Winchester Profession held that "We believe that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments contain a revelation of the character of God, and of the duty, interest and final destination of mankind" - an incredible statement for 1803.

In particular, the word "contain" suggests to me that the Bible is of indirect revelatory value. The Universalists are saying that the Bible is not a revelation from start to finish; indeed it is not itself a revelation, but contains a revelation. It is necessary to separate the contents of the Bible to seek the revelation. To me, this indicates that interpretation is key;  revelation is the scriptures interpreted (why we need Lenses to See By). The interpreter, and I would add, the interpreting community and tradition are important players. When all goes well, and the yield is good fruit, then we might be so bold as to say the Holy Spirit has spoken through scripture. However, just as in a preface, where an author frequently thanks friends who have influenced and edited the work yet takes responsibility for all mistakes, we might thank the Holy Spirit, yet take responsibility for our necessarily imperfect work.

Another remarkable word in the Winchester Profession is "a". That is, although the Bible contains a revelation, that does not preclude that revelation may be found elsewhere. Elsewhere might be reason, scientific observation, and maybe even in the scriptures of non-Christian traditions. There is much to say about the relationship between Special Revelation (i.e. the Bible, and, for some, the Church) and General Revelation. And I'll not say too much for now - only affirm that the Bible gives us, as Christians, a common reference point for discussion - argument even - as to how we should be, as well as inspiration to be as we should.

My second assertion is that the Bible is a collection of works, rather than a single book. This will certainly not meet with acceptance among Christians, who want to see a single and consistent message from Genesis to Revelation. I have been taught, and my reading confirms, there are many voices and strands of tradition within the Bible's pages. In the Old Testament, for example, we have prophets and historians, who maintain that when people misbehave, God responds with calamities. And then there is the Book of Job, which maintains that calamity has little relationship with righteousness. Or the need for cultic purity conflicts with the knowledge that King David was descended from a Moabite. In the New Testament, a tradition of salvation by works vies with a tradition of salvation by faith. Or between the leveling of slave and free and the need for slaves to obey their masters. All this is reminiscent of a dialectical process whereby the truth is somehow beyond the options, though not necessarily absent in either of them.

As a collection of works, the Bible contains law codes, proverb collections, hymns and poems, theological history, along with the words and deeds of prophets. There are probably plain factual accounts of happenings alongside prophetic rhetoric and performance art. In discerning how we should be, this variety of texts does lead to some very different understandings of what God wants for us - just look at the debate within the church regarding the legitimacy of homosexual marriage. But this kind of debate prevents us from becoming too attached to the idols of interpretation that we set up for ourselves.