odd man out.

From Peter Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, a Christmas-themed anecdote:

“In one of my classes I was challenging students to think of examples of where we have assumed that something is in the Bible when in fact it is not.  One student answered, ‘Some people think that the names of the three wise men are found in the New Testament, but the fact of the matter is, we don’t even know what the names of the three wise men were.’  This was a very interesting comment.  True, some people assume that the names Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar are found in the Gospels, although they are not.  But neither are three wise men!  The Gospels do not specify the number.” (122)

Within many of the circles in which I run, scripture is understood to be the highest source of authority when it comes to theological reflection.  If we’re going to give scripture that much weight (as opposed to other sources of theological reflection like reason, experience, or the historical tradition of the church), it’s absolutely essential that we take seriously how we’re using the scriptures to ensure we’re using them consistently and as they are meant to be used.

I have a hunch that many of our arguments about scripture aren’t really about what the scriptures say but about how we believe the scriptures should function in the lives of individuals and faith communities.  Quite often, I’ve seen theological debates in which each person involved calls into question the other person’s fidelity to scripture.  (“If you would just read what the Bible says…” or, “If you weren’t so disobedient to what God says in this verse…”)  But the problem isn’t that either side is ignoring or devaluing the scriptures; on the contrary, his/her respect for the scriptures is what makes the other person’s position intolerable.

So, for example, if someone tends to interpret the scriptures more literally, she might be tempted to accuse someone disagreeing with her (perhaps with some accuracy) of abusing the scriptures by ignoring what they seem to say plainly.  Or, if someone tends to draw scripture interpretations from a historical-critical approach to interpretation, she might be tempted to accuse someone disagreeing with her (again, perhaps with some accuracy) of abusing the scriptures by ignoring the vast distance between the cultural setting in which the scriptures were composed and our present setting.  In either case, though, the individual has a very high respect for scripture; the difference is simply how she believes we can read the scriptures most responsibly.

I don’t want to make any declarations here about the best way to interpret scripture.  I want to request something much simpler: Let’s be careful when we use the language of “The Bible says…” when what we actually mean is, “My interpretation of the Bible says…”  Very often in the debates about homosexuality, people begin referencing the Bible, as they well should.  The problem is that their references aren’t always accurate.

For example, I’ve often heard some variation of the statement, “The Bible defines marriage as a commitment between one man and one woman,” but the Bible does no such thing.  The Bible is simply not interested in defining marriage because the Bible is not a dictionary.  Instead, the Bible is full of examples of marriages, teachings about marriage, and theological discourse about marriage.  But you won’t find a definition of marriage within the Bible because Webster did not write the Bible.

Don’t get me wrong: I think we can and should use the Bible to determine what kind of committed relationships are holy and pleasing to God, but I want us to watch our language when we talk about what the Bible does and does not say.  I cannot legitimately say, “The Bible defines marriage as…”  But I can legitimately say, “I believe the scriptures provide a framework for understanding God’s intention for marriage as…” or “I believe the scriptures lay out a consistent theological foundation for allowing marriage to include…” or even “My interpretation of the scriptures causes me to define marriage as…”

When we can bring our conversations to that level, I think we’ll get a lot more done—and I think we’ll waste a lot less time arguing whether we do or don’t know the names of the three wise men.