Restoring Confidence in the Bible - Can we use the Bible as a reliable moral and spiritual guide in our twenty-first century globalised world?

Restoring Confidence in the Bible
Can we use the Bible as a reliable moral and spiritual guide in our twenty-first century
globalised world?

It happens often. It can be over a coffee, in a bar, on a train, at an airport, during a
conference or after a church service. In recent years, I seem to have lots of conversations
with people – young and old – who, from very different starting points, all want to talk about
exactly the same dilemma; the Bible.

Some begin by explaining that they have no confidence in the Bible, which they have
dismissed as irrelevant to their questions about life. Others acknowledge that they would like
to be able to take it more seriously, but have huge questions about its reliability, its nature
and even its morality – especially around episodes such as those where God ordered the
Israelites to obliterate their enemies, including every woman and child.

Still others confess to having read it – more or less regularly – all their lives and, though they
have great respect for it, are also confused by it or have slowly lost confidence in it.
Typically, they then go on to disclose, shyly, the questions they are desperate to ask their
church leaders or friends, but somehow feel they can’t voice for fear of rejection. Then there
are the parents who are worried about their children abandoning the Church. One father
explained to me the pain that he felt because his daughter, growing up in an ‘information
rich’ world, would no longer accept the superficial sermonising based on an over literalistic
reading of the Bible, which he admitted was their regular Sunday diet.

The world of old certainties, that so many still cling to, is being swept away, not by ignorance
but rather by increasing information. The attempt to bury heads in the sand, to avoid the
storm, is proving to be futile.

Perhaps the challenge of all this is, in some ways, summarised by a story about the famed
atheist and author of ‘The God Delusion’, Richard Dawkins. It was in May 2012 that Michael
Gove, the UK Secretary of State for Education, organised a privately funded distribution of
King James Bibles into every school across England; the reason – to mark its 400th
anniversary. Unexpectedly, this initiative was publically endorsed by Dawkins who also
offered to help pay for it. When asked why, the Oxford professor used the occasion to
restate his view that the Bible "is not a moral book and young people need to learn that
important fact because they are very frequently told the opposite.” He then confessed, “I

                                                1

have an ulterior motive for wishing to contribute to Gove's scheme. People who do not know
the Bible well have been gulled into thinking it is a good guide to morality…. I have even
heard the…opinion that, without the Bible as a moral compass, people would have no
restraint against murder, theft and mayhem. The surest way to disabuse yourself of this
pernicious falsehood is to read the Bible itself.” i

All of this poses some critical questions for anyone who, like me, wants to take the Bible
seriously.

Throughout my life, the Bible has been a constant reference point and source of personal
inspiration. Because of this, I feel deep sorrow that, on one hand, vast numbers of people
around the world consider our sacred text to be, at best, confusing and, at worst, intolerant
and violent. On the other, I am frustrated that our responses, as the Church, to their
questions are so often ill thought through, poorly articulated and laden with in-house,
inhospitable and inaccessible language.

I have not written this paper out of any sense of disregard for the Bible. My motive is
different. I believe it is the responsibility of all those who are not ready to agree with, what I
see as, Professor Dawkins’ rather superficial and juvenile conclusions, to create space for a
deeper discussion and debate around the way in which we work with the biblical texts and,
as a corollary, who we understand God to be. ii

So, what does it mean when we say that the Bible is inspired by God? What about all the
brutality, violence, genocide and punitive legislation contained in the Old Testament, not to
mention the oppressive and discriminatory teaching that is – on occasions – still present in
the New Testament? We have all heard preachers imply that every syllable of it is ‘God’s
word’ – literal, objective truth that is as applicable today as it was when it was first penned.
At the same time, in spite of 2 Timothy 3:16’s proclamation that “All Scriptureiii is God-
breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…”,
many Christians – let alone anyone else – sometimes wonder if it might be best to consign
large chunks of it to a filing cabinet labelled ‘no longer relevant’.iv

Genesis records God’s act of creation and concludes: “God saw all that he had made, and it
was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning – the sixth day. Thus the
heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had
finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.

                                                  2

Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the
work of creating that he had done.”v

Is this creation account suggesting that the world actually came into being over the course of
six literal periods of twenty-four hours?vi

Leviticus 21:16-23 explains how “The LORD said to Moses, ‘Say to Aaron: “For the
generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the
food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame,
                            19
disfigured or deformed;          no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a
dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged
testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present
the food offerings to the LORD. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of
           22
his God.        He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because
of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my
sanctuary.”’

How inclusive is this approach to disability amongst the priesthood?vii

Numbers 15:32-36 tells the following short but shocking story: “While the Israelites were in
the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him
gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept
him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to
Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” So the
assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded
Moses.”

Did God order this death or did Moses mishear him?viii

2 Samuel 24:1 is clear: “Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited
David against them, saying, ‘Go and take a census of Israel and Judah’”, however, 1
Chronicles 21:1, speaking of exactly the same event, takes a very different view: “Satan rose
up against Israel” it asserts, “and incited David to take a census of Israel.”

Can both accounts be right?

                                                   3

The writer of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 wants to put things beyond all doubt: “A woman should learn
in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority
over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the
one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be
saved through childbearing – if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”

Does his writing really reflect God’s view of the role of women in church life and society as a
whole? Does this text really mean what it appears to be saying?

The Bible has had an immense, life transforming, impact for good over the centuries and
continues to play an enormously positive role in countless people’s lives today. Indeed, it is
true that many of the world-changing people we most admire have been inspired by the
words of the Bible: Florence Nightingale, William Wilberforce, William Booth, Anthony Ashley
Cooper (Lord Shaftesbury), Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela,
Desmond Tutu … to name but a few.

Running counter to all of this, however, it has to be acknowledged that the problems we
have outlined are not confined to a few isolated verses. We know that through the centuries
various biblical texts have been read to justify some of the most inhumane, brutal and
repressive episodes in human history: To sanction inquisitions and the torture of hundreds of
thousands of those of other faiths; to denounce Copernicus’ and Galileo’s breakthrough in
understanding of the cosmos; to approve witch-hunts across Europe and North America,
which saw tens of thousands of innocent women slaughtered in the name of God; to portray
African people as cursed by God and therefore justify the enslavement of millions; to
legitimise apartheid and anti-Semitism. And still today, to condone the death penalty, to keep
women subservient to men, to incite Islamophobia, to insist on a ‘young earth’ – anti-
scientific – six day understanding of creation, to oppress gay people and to abuse the
environment. A fairly extraordinary record for a tome which is often referred to as ‘The Good
Book'.

The Bible is the Church’s foundational text. The questions around its authority, inspiration
and morality are therefore central to the Church today. Can we have confidence in it? If so,
on what basis? Does it paint an accurate picture of God? Can we use it as a reliable moral
guide in our twenty-first century globalised, scientifically literate world? Can we rely on it?
Can we rely on all of it? How should we read it? How can we interpret it? How do we
understand it? Only in the search for answers to these huge questions can we hope to find
the raw material to deal with the array of contemporary moral and theological issues facing

                                               4

us or the resource which generations beyond us will need, as they confront what it means to
serve the God of the Bible in the future.

Nor is this just a ‘Western’ concern. In an increasingly globalised society, where the old
frontiers are being eroded as technology shrinks our planet and the internet advances
relentlessly into every slum and remote village, slowly but surely, this is becoming a whole
world issue.

Open Bible Principles
It is in response to these pressing and often voiced questions that I want to encourage a
global discussion (for this is a global issue) around the following suggested principles. I
believe that they provide an overarching guide and consistent approach to understanding
and interpreting the Bible. My hope is that together they create a helpful and authentic
framework for dialogue and discussion, as well as a rich basis for a deeper understanding of
biblical faith and for responding to the array of specific theological, moral, cultural and
societal issues and opportunities we face today and will confront us in the future.

-   The Bible is our sacred text which we understand to be inspired by God.ix As such, it is
    our responsibility to deal honestly and respectfully with it in its entirety, rather than
    selectively with favourite verses and preferred books or authors.x

-   We recognise that developing a consistent and honest methodology for interpreting the
    Bible is a pivotal issue for the Church around the world. Only as we adopt an open,
    humble, discursive and transparent approach to this task will we be in a strong position
    to respond with integrity to the moral, social and political issues which face us as
    individuals, as local and national communities and as a global society as a whole.

-   We believe that it is misleading to think of the Bible as ‘a book’. Rather, it should be
    recognised as ‘a library’xi; a complex collection of historical documents, written, edited
    and compiled over the course of at least 1,500 years and representing various literary
    genresxii, worldviews, languages, cultures, agendas, perspectives and opinions. It must
    therefore be read, understood, analysed and acted upon in context.xiii Although we refer
    to the Bible as our sacred text, it is more accurately a collection of texts – which have
    become sacred to the Church.xiv Together these documents form the account of an
    ancient, sacred dialogue – a giant conversation – initiated, inspired and guided by God
    with and among humanity about God, his creation and our role in it as his partners.

                                               5

-   We do not believe that the Bible is ‘inerrant’ or ‘infallible’    xv
                                                                           in any popular understanding
    of these terms.xvi The biblical texts are not a ‘divine monologue’; where the solitary voice
    of God dictates a flawless and unified declaration of his character and will to their writers,
    but nor are they simply a human presentation of and testimony to God. Rather, the Bible
    is most faithfully engaged as a collection of books written by fallible human beings whose
    work, at one and the same time, bears the hallmarks of the limitations and
    preconceptions of the times and the cultures they live in, but also of the transformational
    experience of their encounters with God. xvii

-   We celebrate the Bible as inspired by God who chooses dialogue over monologue. As
    such we recognise that it contains various, sometimes harmonious, sometimes
    discordant, sometimes even contradictory voices, each of which contributes to the
    developing story of humanity’s moral and spiritual imagination, which through this
    conversation is challenged, stretched and constantly enlarged.

-   We recognise that by its very nature – dialogue rather than monologue – the Bible calls
    humanity to humble and honest discussion and debate in community. We regard the
    example of open conversation and dialogue it embodies to be central to any authentic
    approach to contemporary biblical literacy.

-   We believe that to read and debate the meaning of scripture in Christian community - a
    discipline which, historically, some sections of the Church have been better at than
    others - is part of our vocation as God’s people as we struggle to discern and express
    the character of God, God's will, and what it means to be God's people now and in the
    future. The process of biblical interpretation is the on-going, open-ended, global project
    of all those who take its text seriously and authoritatively.

-   We believe that, rather than ending with the finalisation of the canon, this dynamic
    conversation continues beyond it and involves all of those who give themselves to
    Christ’s on-going redemptive movement. As part of this, our task is to wrestle with the
    challenge of new and often complex contemporary ethical issues which confront us, but
    which never arose in the cultures of the biblical writers.xviii

-   We understand the Bible as the unfolding story of humanity’s growing comprehension of
    who God is, who we are and what our role is in creation. It is the continuing story in
    which we are both rooted and invited to play a part, in our own generation. To read the

                                                  6

Bible as a static record is, therefore, a serious error. Rather, as we explore it together,
    we can trust it to shed light on our lives as individuals, as communities and as a global
    society.

-   We recognise that on various issues – for instance, slavery and wider human rights
    concerns – we may come to hold a developed or a different view than those contained in
    the canon of scripture. In doing so, however, it remains our responsibility to explore why
    the canon includes the range of voices we find there and what the Spirit of God is
    teaching us through their inclusion in the biblical text.xix It is through an acceptance and
    understanding of the humanness of our sacred text, rather than a denial of it, that we
    encounter the divine.xx

-   We honour and respect the insight, wisdom and contribution of those who, from many
    traditions and cultures, over the centuries of the history of the Church, have brought their
    understanding to this sacred dialogue. We equally recognise our responsibility to play
    our part, alongside them, in continuing the conversation.

-   We believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in its understanding of scripture
    through the process of on-going, open and honest dialogue around its meaning within
    the Christian community and that every follower of Christ has a contribution to bring to
    this task. Even unwise contributions to this conversation serve to challenge other
    participants to articulate better understandings with more vigour and clarity.xxi

-   We are committed to the view that, ultimately, Christianity is not about a book, but about
    a person - Jesus - who is the Word of God made flesh. We believe that Jesus is the only
    authentic, true and complete reflection of God. Therefore we are called to live with the
    example, character and teaching of Christ – the full revelation of God – as our guide and
    our primary lens for all biblical interpretation. This approach centres us as we continue to
    wrestle, on one hand, with the biblical text and, on the other, with the challenges and
    opportunities with which our context and culture confronts us.

-   We believe that the task of the whole Christian community – and every individual follower
    of Christ – is to seek continually to grapple with and better understand Jesus’ life,
    character and teaching as the centre of our biblical framework for decision making, both
    personally as well as communally.

                                                7

-   We recognise that our understanding, and therefore interpretation, of the Bible will
    evolve and develop over time. We are aware of the provisionality of our thinking. Rather
    than placing our primary emphasis on immoveable statements of faith and defending
    doctrinal positions, we commit ourselves wholeheartedly to the continuous task of
    honouring and grappling with scripture in community and with God. We believe that only
    this approach provides us with a strong foundation on which to construct our responses
    to the wide array of tasks and issues facing us as individuals and as the Church and
    society as a whole.

-   We recognise that the Church will sometimes have conflicting understandings of what it
    means to live as God’s people in our particular time, location and cultural setting.
    Reading scripture as canon is not to insist upon unanimity in understanding it. We will
    not always agree. When we disagree over our understanding of the Bible we will
    continue to extend grace and patience to one another.

-   We recognise that our inclusion and the inclusion of others into the family of God‘s
    people is not dependent on them or us getting our reading of scripture all right. We are
    included not because of how right we are but because God graciously and mercifully
    accepts us, sometimes despite the positions we adopt.

-   We believe that to understand the Bible as a sacred dialogue provides a more authentic
    and gracious approach to reading and grappling with it than other, more dogmatic,
    methods which can be prone, not only to sowing discord and creating conflict that is
    dishonouring to Christ, but also, with hindsight, often leaves an unhelpful legacy as new
    insights into and readings of the biblical text become evident.

-   We consider that the Bible should be accessible to all. It is the record of God’s desire for
    a dynamic conversation with the whole of humanity rather than a tool of exclusion.

-   We believe that the biblical text is holistic in its approach and, as such, is concerned with
    whole life formation rather than simply spirituality. Jesus came to demonstrate life lived
    well rather than to teach spiritual development or religion disconnected from the rest of
    life and society.

Steve Chalke
5.12.2013

                                               8

Ps. My prayer, as stated earlier, is to create an open, honest and helpful discussion around
the principles I’ve articulated. Indeed, I believe that the Bible is far too important for us not to
have this discussion. Lastly, I don’t want to sign off without taking the opportunity to thank
all those who have looked over and commented on earlier versions of this paper –
colleagues and friends including Tony Campolo, John Drane, Paula Gooder, Dave Parr,
Brian McLaren, Paul Woolley, various members of the Mesa Community and Oasis staff
from around the world. Their insights and observations have been invaluable and have
enriched the words that you’ve just read. Any short comings of this document, however,
along with the responsibility for its final shape and tone, belong solely to me.

i
 ‘Why I want all our children to read the King James Bible’ Richard Dawkins p.31, The Observer, Sunday 20
May 2012

ii
  In my opinion Professor Dawkins’ view either betrays an astonishing level of ignorance of some of the key
principles of literary criticism for a scholar of his reputation or, worse still, an intentional and disingenuous
disregard of those principles in order to make his argument.

iii
  Scripture: A sacred writing or book. The term is also often used by the Church in the plural ‘Scriptures’.
Christianity is not alone in using this terminology to revere its sacred book(s); Islam holds the Qur'an in similar
esteem, as does Hinduism the Vedas and Bhagavad Gita and Buddhism the Sūtra.

iv
  Whatever our understanding of 2 Timothy 3:16, it is important to recognise that, though these words are
now often applied to the whole of the Christian Bible, in context, the writer’s original intention was not to
regard their own writing as scripture. Added to this, of course, their comment was penned before what we
now regard as the canon of the New Testament had even begun to be compiled. Thus, the reference is to
some, or all, of books of the Jewish Bible –what we know as the Old Testament – which includes the very texts
which so many have most questions about!

v
      Genesis 1:31- 2:3

vi
  For more on this issue see footnote xi. It is worth recording here, however, that, during research for this
paper, it was nothing short of shocking to confront again the chasm in understanding around this issue
between the scholars and the vast majority of ordinary church goers.

vii
  It has often been argued that Old Testament law can be divided into three categories; ceremonial, civil and
moral – a view articulated by countless theologians and church leaders, as early as Thomas Aquinas (1225-
1274) and still prevalent in the present day. Under this framework, ceremonial and civil laws were given to the
nation of Israel for their context and time and have no application beyond that. However, it is argued, moral
law is universal and therefore binding on all.

But, there is a problem. Who decides which laws fit into which categories? Take an example. Are the Ten
Commandments made up of ceremonial, civil or moral law? Traditionally, the answer has been that these are
central to moral law. But, now look at the tenth commandment, which is concerned with attitudes to the
property of other people. “‘You shall not covet your neighbour’s house. You shall not covet your neighbour’s
wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour.’” (Exodus
20:17). There are some huge issues here. First, the Hebrew terms which are translated ‘male or female
servant’ actually mean ‘slave and slave girl.’ ‫`( דֶ בֶע‬ebed) means slave, servant, man-servant and ‫הָ חְפִׁ ש‬
(shiphchah) is maid, maidservant, slave or slave girl. More than that, notice how the commandment turns all
women into property as it puts a man’s wife into the same category as his house, his ox, his donkey, his slave,
or anything else he owns! So, is this commandment civil or moral? Which category of law does the tenth
commandment belong to? Is it time and culture bound, or does it apply universally?

                                                        9

Or, take Leviticus 20:10 which states: “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife – with the wife of
his neighbour – both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.” Is this moral, civil, or a bit of
both? In my view, the three category theory does not do justice to the complexity of the Old Testament text.

viii
  Others would ask, did this ever happen at all? Were stories like this ever intended to describe actual events,
or were they are part of a style (genre) of writing of the day which was used to make a legal point by way of a
theoretical illustration or example (in this case, presumably, that Sabbath keeping is extremely important!)?

ix
   The Greek word θεοπνευστος (theopneustos) translated by some versions of 2 Timothy 3:16 as ‘inspired’,
literally means "God-breathed". Which poses the question, does ‘God breathed’ or ‘inspired’ necessarily imply
‘dictation’, or, put differently, that idea that God controlled the tip of each writer’s pen? I hope that the
content of this document provides an answer to this question, as I understand it. For now, however, let me
simply say that I am convinced that the authors who wrote the texts that make up our Bible were all ‘inspired’
by God. It is clear to me that the stories in the Bible are told because each represents something profound for
those who first recorded them. Each author clearly had a very real experience of and encounter with the divine
and – through the lens, or filter, of their consciousness, culture, worldview, language and personal history –
sought to capture that understanding and insight in words.

x
  This includes those passages which we find unpalatable or awkward. In as far as we fail to take the whole
Bible seriously, we only pay lip-service to its authority. Rather than dismiss them, it is our task to explore why
they are included scripture. What makes them ‘useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training’ and what
we are able to learn about the story of God, ourselves and our world from them? Unfortunately, however, we
have to acknowledge that both left (more liberally minded) and right (more conservatively minded) sections of
the Church have an inbuilt tendency to gravitate to the verses and passages which can be easily used to
support their pre-determined positions whist neglecting or ignoring those which they find difficult.

xi
      ‘The Bible’ from the Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, (tà biblía) literally means ‘the books’.

xii
  Everything from history to poetry, parables to pastoral letters and legal code to prophetic visions. Which
raises a key point: To take the Bible seriously is not always the same thing as taking it literally. For instance,
the creation story in Genesis 1 – referred to earlier - is clearly a poem, with repeated refrains (like the psalms
and bits of Job), very probably written, while Israel was in exile in Babylon, in response to Enuma Elish, a well-
known Babylonian creation story that is named after its opening words, “When on high”.
xiii
    Just one example of this is the passage in Hosea 1:4, where God condemns Jehu, (King of Israel), for the
bloodshed at Jezreel (the massacre of the House of Ahab, the seventh king of Israel). But, when we compare it
with the passage in 2 Kings 9, which tells us the original story, we are told that it was God who ordered Jehu to
“strike down the house of Ahab your master, that I may avenge the blood of My servants the prophets, and
the blood of all the servants of the Lord…For the whole house of Ahab shall perish; and I will cut off from Ahab
all the males in Israel, both bond and free. (2 Kings 9:7–8).
xiv
  Perhaps surprisingly, there is no universal agreement by the Church around the question of which texts
constitute the canon of the Bible. Though there is general agreement around the vast majority of books,
various traditions include different books within their canons, in different orders, and sometimes divide or
combine books, or incorporate additional material into canonical books. In fact, Christian Bibles range from the
66 books of the Protestant canon, through the 73 of the Catholic canon, all the way to the 81 of the Ethiopian
Orthodox canon.

There is a sense in which, in the end, it was the invention of the printing press – and particularly the mass
production of cheap books that eventually followed it – which finally fixed the various canons as we know
them today. Until then they were more fluid. Each handwritten text had been slightly different, due, not only
to copying errors but inconstancies in the texts they were copied from. But, it was also true that before the
printing press, the scrolls, and later the handwritten books you had access to in your library varied, as did the
order in which you choose to keep them on your shelves.

                                                            10

From the fourth century, there seems to have existed a general unanimity in the West, at least concerning the
27 books of New Testament, which, for the most part, had spread to the Eastern Church by the fifth century.
Nevertheless, full dogmatic articulations of the Bible’s canon were not made by Roman Catholicism until 1546
(at the Council of Trent) and Greek Orthodoxy until 1672 (the Synod of Jerusalem).

As late as the sixteenth century, however, Martin Luther - the ‘father of the Protestant Reformation’ - was still
suggesting that the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation be dropped because he perceived them to
go against some of the doctrines he was keen to promote (such as ‘sola gratia’ - by grace alone and ‘sola fide’ -
by faith alone). In the end, in spite of the fact that his view was not generally accepted, even among his
followers, these books are still ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.

As the ‘new media’ of the printed book became common, however, the debates over the contents of the
canon subsided and instead – encouraged by its new fixedness – those over the exactness of its inspiration
(the development of the doctrines of infallibility, inerrancy, et al) began to spring up. So, for instance, in
seventeenth century Europe a huge dispute arose over the Hebrew vowel points and accents, which were not
originally part of the Old Testament texts but were inserted by the Masorete scribes hundreds of years later.
Were the Masoretic vowels which, in some cases, significantly impacted the meaning of the text, inspired or
not? Later, in the mid eighteen-hundreds, a group of protestant scholars, based in Geneva, developed the
theory of ‘plenary verbal inspiration’ declaring that every word of the biblical text (the Protestant Old
Testament was translated from the Masoretic text) was the very word that God intended it to be. Then, in the
early twentieth century, the view that God would choose to inspire just one version of the Bible in any given
language was developed, mainly in the USA, teaching that, in English, that translation was the 1611 King
James. Reflecting on all these disputes, Dr Stephen Holmes concludes that ‘a fundamentalist attitude to
scripture relies on the fixity of the printed text.’ [Catalyst Live, Stephen Holmes, November 2013
bmscatalystlive.com]

For a very helpful account of the formation of the canon see ‘The Bible: A Beginner’s Guide’ by Paula Gooder,
published by Oneworld Publications 2013, Chapter 3 pg.62

xv
   Technically ‘infallibility’ means that the Bible is incapable of error in matters of faith and practice, but not
necessarily in historic or scientific matters. ‘Inerrancy’, however, goes further and states that that the Bible is
without error in any aspect, spoken by God and written down in its perfect form by humans.

Both terms, however, even if nothing else, are extremely misleading and unfortunately send the world the
chilling message that the text of the Bible must be blindly accepted without challenge. In truth, there is
nothing in the biblical texts that is beyond debate and questioning, and healthy churches are ones that create
an environment which welcomes just that approach.

xvi
   In running earlier drafts of this document past various friends and colleagues it was interesting that I
received feedback ranging from “Well yes, but who ever thought otherwise?” to “I agree with you, but my
sense is that many Bible-believing Christians will fear that their world is collapsing.”
xvii
   Why does God order Israel to “go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare
him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” (1 Samuel
15:2-3). Because that’s the way that people thought in those days. Why does God declare in Leviticus 21:16-23
that no man with any physical disability can ‘desecrate my sanctuary’ by his presence? Because that’s the way
that people thought in those days.

So, put bluntly, the reason we find some of these primitive stories of the Old Testament so shocking, violent
and brutal is simply because they are shocking, violent and brutal. And, if we didn’t regard these stories in this
way, there would be something wrong with our own moral compass. Why, because, in many ways, our culture
has developed its sense of moral consciousness over the centuries since then.

                                                        11

However, there are two very important caveats to all this:

Firstly, at the very same time these authors – ‘inspired’ by their encounter with God – are being both
challenged and therefore are challenging their society. Through their ongoing journey and dialogue with him
they are discovering new ways of being human – ideas of mercy, justice, equality, peace, compassion and
grace. God is slowly stretching Israel’s moral imagination. What about, for instance, God’s repeated command
that Israel should not deprive the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow of justice? (See Deuteronomy 24:17-
22). What about God’s radical guidance on the ownership of land designed to favour the poor? (“The land
must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you reside in my land as foreigners and
strangers.” Leviticus 25:23). Or, God’s determination that no Israelite should charge interest on loans made to
other Israelites? (See Deuteronomy 23:19)

Secondly, whilst we are repulsed by the Old Testament’s violent stories (because we believe that we are more
enlightened), it is sobering to remember that our society is still deeply morally compromised? Have we
reached moral maturity yet? Does our society model equality? Is justice freely available to the poor in the
twenty-first century? What about the banking system, land ownership and immigration in our globalise
world? Is there peace on earth? Does anyone ever declare war in the name of their national values and God?
Perhaps we still have further to go than we might think.

xviii
   In fact, this approach is based around a traditional ‘Bible, Tradition, Reason’ method of understanding
God’s voice, which though not always recognised consciously, is, in fact, the only framework through which the
Bible can be interpreted.

xix
      We discover the divine inspiration of scripture through also understanding its humanness.

xx
  Instead of beginning with the question ‘Why did God say this?’ it is more helpful to ask questions such as
‘Why did the author(s) find it important to tell this story?’, What were the events that were shaping their
world?’, ‘What does this Book/story/passage tell us about how the author(s) understood who they were?’ and
‘‘What does this Book/story/passage tell us about their understanding of God at that time?’

xxi
  Perhaps a sermon should be regarded as great – not because everyone in the congregation agrees with the
preacher – but because, following its delivery, those present just can’t wait to talk about it; to discuss and
debate it together, because the text around which it was built has captured their imagination and curiosity.

                                                         12