From Inspiration to Understanding. Edward W. H. Vick

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ by attributing the effectiveness of the proclamation of Scripture to the activity of the Holy Spirit. The Bible has authority if and when God mediates himself through it. Should one then wish to speak of the apostolicity of the New Testament books one can certainly do so. The term ‘apostle’ is reserved for those who were the first to announce the good news about Jesus. The books share with the men who were apostles that they are the primary historical witnesses to the resurrection, to faith in Jesus Christ. In the one case such primary historical witnesses were human beings. In the other case they are writings. In both cases they have an irreplaceable historical position. They are the first, and in that sense the primary, witnesses of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and its meaning. These books continue to be the means, as they were from the time of their writing, for understanding and for experiencing the Christian faith. As in the case of the human apostle, the book is what it is because of what it does and because of what it has done. It is its effectiveness and its historical position that constitutes its apostolicity.

      3 INTERPRETATION AND TRADITION

      It is clear that we need an appropriate concept of authority when we speak of the ‘authority of the Bible.’ We shall discuss the meaning of the word to some purpose as we discover how it is used by those who acknowledge that authority. The community of faith recognizes the Bible. We must give due consideration to the implications of that recognition. The Bible has always held a unique position in the church. So also has the interpreter, the teacher, the charismatic leader. The Bible ‘speaks’ only as someone interprets it, and, in turn, only as someone understands it.

      The Bible is a text. That means that it has fixed foci: so many books, so many chapters. It is a set of writings arranged in an order. The words are there, once written by hand, now printed. Whether in some translation or another, or in the original languages, the Bible is a text. As a text it is fixed and static. There are the scrolls, the original pages. There is the book bound between two covers, now sitting on the shelf, now open on the desk, now closed on the table. In what sense can we speak, then, of the authority of the Bible? How can we say that the Bible is the living and challenging word of God, when the Bible is a book of silent words, ink-marks on paper? The Bible has no authority simply by being there, whoever ‘wrote’ it and whatever the circumstances of its ‘writing.’ Does the Bible have authority only when someone in the community interprets and expounds it? In that case does not the teacher, the interpreter, wield the authority by virtue of his ability to interpret the text, which text would otherwise be a dead letter? Is not the authority then within the church which engages in the activity, and exercises control over the process of interpreting the Bible? Does not the church draw limits, give guidance and impose sanctions concerning what the Bible means and how it is to be interpreted? Indeed, is it not the case that the church produced the Bible, that the church decided which books it would accept as Scripture and which books it would reject? Is the authority then not rather of the church than of the Bible? If so we decide the question about authority discerning the church’s attitude to the Bible.

      Moreover, interpretations of what the Bible means, when endorsed and agreed upon, are passed on from one generation to the next so that an accepted meaning becomes widely recognized within a particular community. That meaning then has become a tradition. The tradition then provides guidance in indicating what

      Scripture means, what is the right and proper interpretation of Scripture. The particular tradition guides the reader by providing him with the questions and the concepts with which to read and interpret the Bible. This church, that church, any church says: ‘This is how we read the Bible,’ and then refers you to its teachings, which it claims are the teachings of the Bible or are related to the Bible. When we come to inquire about the meaning of Scripture we are offered a particular tradition of understanding. So the authority lies in the tradition. It does not matter whether the tradition has its source in a council, in a creed, in the words of a reformer, or in the deliverances of a charismatic. If tradition is the means by which we understand Scripture, then the tradition has the real and primary authority. A particular church accepts a distinctive method of interpretation and produces a doctrinal system. Its reading of the Bible will reflect that doctrinal tradition. The authority then lies in the doctrinal system.

      Appeal to the authority of Scripture may not, under analysis, turn out to be what it appears to be.

      4 THE CONCEPT OF AUTHORITY

      The term ‘authority’ refers to a relationship. It is a relational term. The term, like ‘revelation,’ points to a two-term relationship. Someone or something has authority over or for someone else. Someone reveals himself to someone else. Someone acknowledges the authority of another. Someone understands what is revealed. The institution or the person that has authority has power over another. It has the capacity to influence that other, and it sometimes in fact has done so and does so. The authority may be charismatic or official. Authority may be the effect of the charm or persuasiveness of a person. It may be due to the social pressure of wide acceptance of power as legitimate. It is difficult not to be influenced by a widely recognized authority. We may accept it simply because there is no alternative. We are persuaded by the orator. We bow to pressures we cannot escape. Pressures and sanctions, or simply the threat of pressures and sanctions, can persuade us to act in one way rather than in another. The forces at work around us lead us to the acceptable behaviour. In this sense the term ‘authority’ refers to the effective influence which a person, a book, a custom, a belief, an institution has over people.

      The term ‘authority’ is also used of the experts, the persons who know what they are talking about and who, because of this, deserve our respect when speaking. A person who does something competently may also be regarded as an authority when it is a matter of discussing how to do what he can do.

To have authority is to have influence. Someone influences because he is a friend and we are trying to please him, or perhaps because he is an expert and we acknowledge the right he has to be respected. ‘Authority,’ ‘competence,’ and ‘recognition’ are thus all very closely related concepts.31

      They are closely related when we attempt to analyse the Bible’s authority. Here it is clear that the effective authority of the Bible is identical with the influence it exerts. It is also clear that an appropriate response on the part of the reader is necessary. One can acknowledge authority when one has experienced the influence of the writing in a particular way.

      Authority is acknowledged power. When people recognize that a person, an institution, a class has the right to exercise power, authority is in evidence. ‘Power’ means the capacity to influence another, to get one’s purpose fulfilled, one’s ideas accepted and acted upon, to get one’s will done. Power can be exercised without being recognized as right and proper. Such power may lead someone to perform exactly the same act as the exercise of legitimate power might produce. If someone flourishes a revolver in my face, that will certainly provide me with an incentive to co- operate with the person flourishing it. But there are also legitimate ways of relieving me of — say — my money. I may recognize the structured power of bureaucratic authority and permit the taxman to claim some of my money. On this definition, ‘authority’ means both the exercise of power and the recognition of it as legitimate.

Indeed, recognition is the defining element. This is the important element in our present considerations. Authority means recognition. Authority ‘is exercised only over those who voluntarily accept it’ (Juvenal).32

      How and why do we come to acknowledge an authority? Does such an acknowledgment commit us to an automatic and uncritical acceptance of our authority’s pronouncements and demands whatever they are? What reasons can we give for our initial acceptance? Can a critical acceptance of authority lead to an uncritical following of its demands?

      1 One reason for recognition of an authority is belief in the rightness of established customs and traditions. We are taught that we should adopt beliefs and behaviour patterns, and we never question them. They teach us, they train us, before we are able to reason. Later we may find СКАЧАТЬ