The Bible: Inspired Book or Inspiring Booklet?

Even though the question of whether or not to ordain women as elders and pastors is a theological issue¹ (as is also the dilemma over baptizing practicing polygamists into church fellowship), some Christians seem indifferent, even reluctant, to allow the Bible to address it.

This attitude is a symptom of the theological uncertainty infecting much of Christendom. Reflecting upon the situation in Protestant churches, a well-respected evangelical scholar remarked, "Preaching is hazy; heads are muddled; hearts fret; doubts drain our strength; uncertainty paralyzes action." Moreover, Bible-believing Christians are told that "the wish to be certain is mere weakness of the flesh, a sign of spiritual immaturity."

The technical name for this state of affairs is "theological pluralism." And while its advocates celebrate the "diversity" of theological views as a mark of open-mindedness, the Bible writers call it an end-time loss of faith in the Bible and its God (2 Tim 4:3–4; cf. Isa 5:21). Such erosion of the Bible's authority leads Christians to pick and choose, cafeteria style, those parts of the Bible palatable to their taste. When this happens, the Bible ceases to be taken as an inspired Book, but only as an inspiring booklet.

How and why did such a thing happen? How is it playing out in the churches? And how is it affecting the attitude of Christians on issues of faith and practice?

The Silence of the Bible

Over two decades ago, James D. Smart observed with great concern "the growing silence of the Scriptures" in the preaching and teaching of the church and in the consciousness of Christian people, "a silence that is perceptible even among those who are most insistent upon their devotion to the Scriptures." Smart described a conspiracy among the various liberal and conservative factions of Christianity to reduce the Bible to a subordinate status in the church. If successful, the conspiracy would create a situation in which most Christians would "awaken one day to find ourselves a church almost totally alienated from the Scriptures." Smart found the scheme above so dangerous that he felt compelled in his book "to sound an alarm."³

Although Bible-believing Christians cannot agree with Smart's own liberal position on the authority of the Bible, yet his observation on the growing silence of the Bible has merit. Until the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, the overwhelming majority of Christians affirmed their faith in the full inspiration, trustworthiness and dependability of the entire Bible as the Word of God. Since the rise of serious attempts to silence the authority of the Bible on issues of faith and life. These have taken several forms: from (1) outright denial of the uniqueness of God's word, through (2) a hesitancy to accept its teaching because of its supposed ambiguities, inconsistencies, or irrelevance to contemporary issues, to (3) a reinterpretation of its teaching to accommodate unbiblical views and lifestyles.

Although some of the most creative theological minds of the century contributed to the effort to undermine faith in the Scriptures, the "conspiracy" to silence the Bible was not recently hatched by some liberals or conservatives, as Smart suggests. Actually, silencing the Bible has been Satan's master strategy all through history.

Satan's Master Strategy

Genesis 3:1–6 not only tells of the human race's fall but also describes the strategy Satan followed. Approaching Eve in the guise of a serpent, he employed a two-fold scheme to undermine the Word of God. First, he asked, "Did God really say that . . . ?", thus raising doubts about the nature of God's Word (the question of inspiration). Second, Satan moved to a methodological issue—the question of interpretation. In effect he argued, "Let's even assume that God actually said something to you. Do you think that He really means what He said?" This question takes different forms today: Does the Bible really teach that Christians should not lie, steal, kill, or break the Sabbath under any circumstances? Does the Word of God really forbid homosexuality, polygamy, abortion, the use of alcohol, or the wearing of jewelry?

Reasons

In other words, the Genesis account of the fall highlights two major reasons for the erosion of biblical authority: 1) uncertainty over the nature of the Word of God (inspiration) and 2) uncertainty over how it should be understood (interpretation or hermeneutics). Mistaken views in these areas set the stage for theological pluralism. Notice how the crisis came to Adam and Eve. The Lord explicitly stated that they would "surely die" if they disobeyed His Word. Satan countered: "You will not surely die." The two statements are contradictory and lead to different destinations. But today's pluralistic scholarship, following the lead of Satan, maintains that both contradictory statements are true. It even prides itself on believing that this kind of pluralism in thought is a mark of "open-mindedness"—the very lie that Satan told, when he said to Adam and Eve, "Your eyes shall be opened . . ."

Because theologians are the architects of theological pluralism, and because it is they who have laid the foundation for the erosion of biblical authority in the various churches, we will briefly summarize the confusing voices of scholarship regarding the exact nature of the Bible's inspiration and how the Bible should be understood.

Scholars and the Word of God

Bible-believing Christians have always held that the entire Scripture, consisting of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, is the authoritative word of God. They believe that the Holy Spirit so guided the Bible writers that even though they employed their own words to communicate the message, what they finally put down in writing is a trustworthy and dependable account of God's message (2 Pet 1:20–21; 2 Tim 3:16). The written Word is, therefore, not merely the words of fallible men, but the Word of the living God that should be accepted, believed and obeyed (1 Thess 2:13). But this historic Christian belief is now being challenged in several ways.

Over a century ago, B. B. Warfield, one of the leading scholars who brought the issue of biblical inspiration to the forefront of discussion, quipped that "wherever five 'advanced thinkers' assemble, at least six theories as to inspiration are likely to be ventilated."⁴ Conflicting positions on inspiration have led to a plurality in methods of Bible interpretation. This in turn has led people to discount the Bible's authority, as is evident in the subtle manner in which the Bible has been described. A few examples will illustrate this shrinking authority of the Bible from an objective Book to a subjective booklet.

For instance, some scholars, following the influential Swiss theologian Karl Barth, hold that the Bible only contains the Word of God or that it can become the Word of God to individuals the moment it grips their hearts. In this view, unless the Bible "becomes" the word of God to the interpreter or reader, it is only the word of fallible human beings. This belief, known as neo-orthodoxy, might well be described as the "potential Word of God" position.

Other scholars teach that not every part of the Bible is inspired. In their estimation some sections reflect the mistaken opinions of the Bible writers. They use higher critical methods to determine which parts are accurate or true and what, if anything, portions of the Bible can teach us about the beliefs and history of the times.

These theologians would see the Bible as either a partial Word of God (if the alleged mistakes in the Bible are counted as substantial), or they would treat the Bible as primarily the Word of God (if the alleged inaccuracies are deemed few). But in either case, based on their theories of inspiration and interpretation, these scholars reject the Bible as entirely God's authoritative Word, dependable and trustworthy in all of its teachings. They accept only the portions of Scripture that "make sense" to them or which support positions they already hold. In so doing, they reduce the Bible from an inspired Book to an inspiring booklet—the latter referring to those portions they consider worthy of God's inspiring activity.

Subtle Phrases

Theologians use several well-crafted phrases to express their revised ideas of biblical authority. One English theologian suggested the phrase "Scripture as a whole" instead of "the whole Scripture"; another person proposed the expression, "biblical authorization" rather than "biblical authority"; other scholars believe that the Scriptures provide only a "biblical direction" (or trajectory, flow, or plot, as in a play) and not necessarily a "biblical directive." One ecumenical document described the Bible as possessing a "normative priority," but not in the sense of normative supremacy;⁵ and John Shelby Spong, the Episcopal bishop of Newark, understands the Bible as "a historic narrative of the journey of our religious forbears," not "a literal road map to reality."⁶ None of these phrases ascribes full authority to the whole Bible as the word of God.

Some otherwise Bible-believing scholars are finding these new ideas on the Bible appealing.

For instance, one prominent evangelical scholar suggested that when Christians approach the Bible, they must "look to it with an expectation that in God's spirit we don't do it." He urged readers of the Bible to "listen in faith for the Word of God in these human words . . . in spite of all its [the Bible's human] limitations." This implies that the Bible is not the word of God but only contains the Word of God.

Some churches have enshrined this view in their liturgy, replacing the traditional expression before the reading of the Scriptures, "Let us listen to the Word of God," with the statement, "Let us listen for the word of God." In another expression of this view, one evangelical theologian asserts that the Bible is an inspired classic casebook, a collection of case studies of divine-human encounter;⁸ or, as one Adventist scholar promotes, the Bible is a casebook, as distinguished from a codebook.⁹

Impact on the Bible

Such views present a sophisticated challenge to the historic Christian view of the inspiration and authority of the Bible. And each of them employs some modified version of the historical-critical method of interpretation—a method which masquerades as "scientific" but which in actuality is a pagan ideology.¹⁰ When scholars pass the Bible through this critical shredding machine, what remains is a Bible bruised, battered, and shattered to pieces.

Ellen White wrote, "In our day, as of old, the vital truths of God's word are set aside for human theories and speculations. Many professed ministers of the gospel do not accept the whole Bible as the inspired word. One wise man rejects one portion; another questions another part. They set up their judgment as superior to the word; and the Scripture which they do teach rests upon their own authority. Its divine authenticity is destroyed. Thus seeds of infidelity are sown broadcast; for the people become confused and know not what to believe." She decried these practices in Her day. He taught that the word of God was to be understood by all. He pointed to the Scriptures as of unquestionable authority, and we should do the same. The Bible is to be presented as the word of the infinite God, as the end of all controversy and the foundation of all faith" (Christ's Object Lessons, pp. 39–40).

As a result of the doubts being raised on many Bible passages, 1) preachers no longer preach with conviction on any subject; 2) teachers are tentative in their teaching of Bible doctrine; 3) leaders hesitate to make decisions on the basis of the Bible; and 4) lay people are discouraged from reading, studying, and meditating upon the Word of God. Saddest of all, the ensuing famine for the Word of God (see Amos 8:11–12) has led many to lose their faith in Jesus Christ, the One to whom all Scripture points (John 5:39; Luke 24:25–27). Ellen G. White anticipated this sad situation: "The work of 'higher criticism,' in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation; it is robbing God's word of power to control, uplift and inspire human lives" (Education, p. 227). The tragedy is that theological pluralism hails this spiritual blindness as a sign of open-mindedness and scholarly enlightenment!¹¹

Impact on Churches

The doubts which scholars have created regarding the Word of God have seriously undermined the confidence of average church members in the Bible. Somehow, they've come to believe that the Bible is so full of problems that only the learned scholars can understand its true meaning. This alleged obscurity of the Bible is precisely what Roman Catholicism advanced to argue for the infallibility of the pope. If ordinary church members cannot understand the Bible, they need an infallible pope to interpret it for them.

Therefore, to believe in the obscurity of the Bible is to accept a new form of papalism—the infallibility of scholars, to whom believers must go for biblical answers. The sixteenth-century reformers rightly rejected this position on the grounds that papalism replaces the Holy Spirit, Christ's appointed Teacher of the church (John 16:13ff), with a fallible human being. To put it differently, this new papalism of scholars denies that the Holy Spirit is always available to help anyone who is humbly seeking to understand His inspired Word.

Bible-believing Christians need to be aware of what is at stake in this new papalism. "Satan is constantly endeavoring to attract attention to man in the place of God. He leads the people to look to bishops, to pastors, to professors of theology, as their guides, instead of searching the Scriptures to learn their duty for themselves. Then, by controlling the minds of these leaders, he can influence the multitudes according to his will" (The Great Controversy, p. 595).

Regrettably, uncertainty over the Bible's authority has trickled down to almost every level of the church's life. We see this subtle shift from the inspired Book to an inspiring booklet being played out in many ways:

Practice of Laymembers

Besides the fact that not many people spend time in the Word of God, a casual glance will reveal that fewer and fewer of our church members even bring their Bibles to church; when they do, they rarely open them. One reason may be that the Bibles are seldom used in the churches. For instance, during the Sabbath school Bible study hour, many teachers read more from the lesson quarterly than from the Bible itself. Not too long ago, Myron Widmer observed in an Adventist Review editorial, "Too often I find that what passes for Bible study in many Sabbath school classes is little more than a rehash of familiar sayings, personal opinion, and Ellen White quotations. It isn't Bible study, but simply comments about the Bible.... Our 'lesson study' has the guise of Bible study, but it isn't. It is more a study of the Sabbath school lesson quarterly than the Bible."¹¹

Then also, during Sabbath school time, when the activities for the day are running late, often the Bible study period of the Sabbath school time is reduced to make time for the "more important" programs. This reveals our attitude toward the place of the Bible, not only in our private devotional lives, but also in our corporate church life.

Practice of Ministers

In many minds, worship means listening to a sermon. But sometimes the preachers are not much help in leading us to the Bible. In fact, they also have contributed to this growing silence of the Bible, whenever their "preaching" consists of nothing more than a rehash of what they have read from some magazine, author, or newspaper, or of some "new light" from the prophets of TV talk-show programs. Some preachers who attempt preaching from the Bible create their own canon by limiting the preaching to only a few books or sections of the Bible and a few favorite topics. Can you remember the last time you heard a sermon preached from books such as Leviticus, Chronicles, Obadiah, Habakkuk, Zechariah, James, Philemon, Jude, or Revelation? Are these books less inspired than the others?

In an effort to appear relevant and up-to-date, some preachers would rather preach about therapy or healing than about repentance and costly discipleship. The consequence is that many contemporary sermons—better described as speeches or lectures, or at best sermonettes—hardly call attention to the "blessed hope" of the second coming or to the assurance of the pre-advent (investigative) judgment. And why should members study the Bible if the ministers don't preach from it?

Practice of Musicians

The theological content of music in most Christian churches reveals this subtle shift from Book to booklet. Many of the songs that were sung in our own Adventist churches years ago were actually filled with Bible content or themes. Familiar hymns like "Lift up the Trumpet," "We Know Not the Hour," "Guide Me, O Thou Great Jehovah," "The Judgment Has Set," etc., are fitting examples. In much of our contemporary practice, however, we hear more sentimental New Age music in which Jesus is re-cast as a buddy or a boyfriend, God is increasingly portrayed as an indulgent Father who will tolerate anything His spoiled children do or want, and the Holy Spirit is reduced to one's inner self (to use the language from Hindu mystical religion), or even treated as a cosmic pill to give people a spiritual "high."

Since much contemporary Christian music does not seem to be grounded in sound biblical teaching, it is not surprising that what ought to be an effective vehicle for the proclamation of the everlasting gospel has become the occasion for the display of individual talent, often evoking applause as a response. Is this a reason why congregational hymn singing is fading out in some places?

Practice of Church Leaders

The growing silence of the Bible is also perceptible at the various levels of the church's decision-making bodies. In some instances, when issues of doctrine and practice come up for discussion, pragmatic considerations and the authority of the "vote" tend to hold sway over prayerful and thoughtful consideration of Bible principles. It has become convenient to say, "The Bible is silent," in order to avoid dealing with the theology of such issues as women's ordination, homosexuality, polygamy, abortion, fighting in the wars of one's tribe or nation, then divorce and remarriage, etc. When theological problems arise which threaten to jeopardize God's truth and honor, some find it more expedient to wish them away with inaction or to let the individual members or world fields do as they please, than to demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord." The courage of Bible-based convictions is greatly needed in many places.

The Challenge Facing Adventists

The above discussion has highlighted the growing silence of the Bible in Christian churches. In spite of the increase of pluralism resulting from the erosion of biblical authority, Seventh-day Adventists must not move with the flow of current trends. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Is 8:20).

What then should the Seventh-day Adventist church do about the theological issues (ordination of women, baptizing practicing polygamists, embracing homosexual lifestyle, divorce and remarriage, etc.) which currently confront her? Here are a few suggestions.

1. Subordinate Religious Experience to the Word of God

Increasingly, Christians are questioning everything in the Bible except what agrees with their subjective religious experience (often called "the Holy Spirit's leading"). Thus we hear, "The Spirit has called me"; "the Spirit has assured me"; "the Spirit has accepted me"; and "the Spirit has blessed me."

Experience surely is important in Christianity (1 John 1:1–3). The real issue, however, is whether experience should have priority over Scripture. The Bible testifies that as important as even a Spirit-inspired experience may be, the Holy Scriptures are more sure than any experience. The apostle Peter specifically addressed this issue in 2 Peter 1:16–21. He cited the apostles' experiential knowledge of Jesus—"we were eyewitnesses … we heard … we were with Him." However, Peter continued in verse 19 by saying that there is something "more sure" than experience: the prophetic word, the divinely-inspired, authoritative Scriptures (vv. 20–21).

Peter's approach is the very opposite of our pluralistic generation's, which accepts the Bible because it confirms our experience; the experience is the norm. But the apostle argues that his sanctified experience is trustworthy because it is confirmed by the Scriptures! Likewise Jesus, in explaining His death and resurrection (Luke 24:25–27), could have appealed to real experiences: His presence with the saints, angels appearing at the tomb, etc. Instead, He pointed His disciples to "Moses and all the prophets," something "more sure" than experiences. The men from Emmaus testified that what caused their hearts to "burn within" them (v. 32) was Jesus' opening of the Scriptures to them.

2. Recognize that Majority Votes Don't Establish Truth

The quest for political freedom and democracy has also led increasingly to people demanding a say in matters affecting their lives. Not surprisingly, some within the church are insisting that Christian doctrine and lifestyle should also be defined by the will of the people, through referenda, public opinion polls, surveys, etc.

Despite the values of democracy, Bible-believing Christians need to remind themselves that Christ is the Church's Head; therefore the decisions of the church must be ratified not by a mere referendum of its members, but by the authority of the Bible. Leon Morris made a helpful distinction between a church and a democracy: "In a democracy there is no authority but that which arises from within, the will of the people. In a church there is no authority but that which comes from outside, the will of God. Democracy is effective when the people are energetic and help themselves, the church when God acts and redeems men."¹²

3. Govern Ethical Sensitivity by the Bible

Our generation is painfully aware of injustice and bigotry in our world—racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, apartheid, etc. Because people in the past have used the Bible to justify these oppressive acts or structures, some biblical scholars attempt to excise from the Bible, for all practical purposes, the sections that offend their ethical sensitivities on equality, fairness, justice, compassion, etc.

Usually the Old Testament is the target of fierce attack because of the alleged "horror stories" it contains or for its presumed male-centeredness (androcentricity), which supposedly legitimized a "patriarchal structure" or an anti-women bias.¹³ Consequently, some theologians point to societies which have moved beyond racial segregation to integration. On that analogy, they urge the Christian church to revise its alleged doctrine of "gender segregation" to allow for gender integration ("inclusiveness"). What they are actually advocating, though, is the celebration of the values of a unisex society—a community in which gender barriers in roles, clothing, human sexuality, etc., are eliminated.

The way to accomplish this is to adopt what one Adventist scholar referred to as a "hermeneutic of compassion," a method which makes it possible for Christians to ignore, reject, or reinterpret those "non-Christian" parts of the Bible which offend their ethical feelings. Some try to get rid of the "sexist" or male-oriented language in the Bible, replacing it with gender-inclusive expressions which blur distinctions between male and female: "Lord God" becomes "Sovereign God," "heavenly Father" becomes "heavenly Parent," "Son of God" becomes "Child of God," and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob becomes "the goddess Sophia."¹⁴

This is an old heresy (Marcionism) dressed up in modern clothing. John Bright observed, "I find it most interesting and not a little odd that although the Old Testament on occasion offends our Christian feelings, it did not apparently offend Christ's 'Christian feelings'! Could it really be that we are ethically and religiously more sensitive than he? Or is it perhaps that we do not view the Old Testament—and its God—as he did?"¹⁵

4. Have Courage to Stand for Biblical Convictions

Probably the most basic reason for the subtle shift of attitude from the Bible as an inspired Book to its perception as an inspiring booklet is the strong pressure on Christians to conform to the contemporary drifts of new opinions.

The word "new" has become the operative word on every label; without it, products or ideas cannot sell. Who has not heard about the "New Age Religion" with its "New Theology" and "New Morality" for the coming "New World Order"? Is it any wonder then, to find "New" Testament Christians who have experienced the "new birth" and have become "new creatures" expressing in their "new tongues" their dislike for the "Old" Testament and the "old" paths?

Response to "New Truths"

What then should Bible-believing Christians say in response to the old heresies being recycled as new truths (or as one Adventist scholar ingeniously calls them, "present" truths) for today's pluralistic age?

First, what is new is not always true. The "old" may be preferable to the "new" because it is right (Isa 58:12; Jer 6:16). And new truths will not contradict old truths (Is 8:19, 20).

Second, Christians must have the moral courage to move against popular tides of unbiblical opinions. Such people are often despised and disdained by their peers as uninformed, obscurantist, pre-scientific or even intolerant (according to the canons of pluralism). Regrettably, Christians who seek the applause of the world rather than the commendation of God find it more expedient to conform to society's norms than to endure sophisticated intimidation by their peers. And when they conform, the surest way they maintain an appearance of Christianity is to adopt a method of interpretation that explains away unpopular biblical positions in a popular new light.

The Bible warns us against conforming to the world's ideas: "Be not conformed to this world" (Rom 12:1); "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world" (1 Jn 2:15-17). Martin Luther King, Jr., observed, "We are called to be people of conviction, not conformity; of moral nobility, not social respectability. We are commanded to live differently and according to a higher loyalty."¹⁶

Daniel E. Pilarczyk, the archbishop of Cincinnati, asked, "If the church is singing the same tune as everyone else, then who needs the church?"¹⁷ If Jeremiah were living in our day, he would ask the same question that he posed to his contemporaries: "Now why go to Egypt to drink water from the Shihor? And why go to Assyria to drink water from the River?" (Jer 2:18 NIV).

Conclusion

Theological pluralism has infected much of Christendom. By making people reluctant to allow the Bible to speak with authority, it has had a devastating impact on the life and mission of the church. What is at stake is the nature of the Bible (the exact nature of its inspiration) and the approach to the Bible (the appropriate method for its interpretation).

Today the Seventh-day Adventist church also faces these foundational issues as it grapples with the question of ordaining women as elders and pastors as well as baptizing practicing polygamists. In deciding which direction to go on these issues, the church should ensure that these questions not be settled according to the cultural preferences of each local region of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist church. Since the problems are theological and not just sociological, only the Holy Scriptures can have the final say on the issues at hand. Moreover, in both instances those ordained or baptized must be accepted whole-heartedly by every Seventh-day Adventist believer; for in a worldwide church such as we have, ordination and baptism in one division of the world field are automatically valid for another, and should remain that way.

As the church prayerfully considers such questions, it needs to remember the statement by Ellen G. White: "God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority—not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain 'Thus saith the Lord' in its support" (The Great Controversy, p. 595, emphasis mine).