Responding to the Word
The concept of divine revelation, and of our need to submit to it, is both eminently reasonable and practically wholesome. It is reasonable because it acknowledges that the infinite God is altogether beyond his finite creatures, and that we could never have known him if he had not taken the initiative to make himself known. It is also wholesome because submission to God’s self-revelation in Christ and in the full biblical witness to Christ, far from inhibiting the health and growth of the church, is actually indispensable to them.
My claim in this chapter is that God’s Word, received and responded to, has a central role in the faith and life of God’s people. I will give five examples.
Mature discipleship
First, submission to the authority of Scripture is the way of mature discipleship. I am not saying it is impossible to be a disciple of Jesus without a high view of Scripture, for this is manifestly not the case. There are genuine followers of Jesus Christ who are not ‘evangelical’, whose confidence in Scripture is small, even minimal. Instead, they put more faith in the past traditions and present teaching of the church, or in their own reason or experience. I have no desire to deny the authenticity of their Christian profession. Yet I would add that their discipleship is bound to be impoverished as a result of their attitude to the Bible. A full, balanced and mature Christian discipleship is impossible whenever disciples do not submit to their Lord’s teaching authority as it is mediated through Scripture.
For what is discipleship? It is a many-faceted lifestyle, an amalgam of several ingredients. In particular, it includes worship, faith, obedience and hope, as we will see below. Every Christian is called to worship God, to trust and obey him, and to look with confident hope towards the future. Yet each of these is a response to revelation, and is seriously impaired without a reliable, objective revelation of God.
1. Worship. Every Christian is a worshipper. In both public and private we recognize our duty to worship Almighty God. But how can we worship God unless we know both who he is and what kind of worship pleases him? Without this knowledge our attempts at worship are almost certain to degenerate into idolatry. At best, we would copy that famous altar which Paul found in Athens and which was inscribed ‘to an unknown god’. But Christians are not agnostic Athenians; we are to love the Lord our God with all our mind and to worship him ‘in the Spirit and in truth’.
What then does it mean to worship God? It is to ‘glory in his holy name’, that is, to revel adoringly in who he is in his revealed character. But before we can glory in God’s name, we must know it. Hence the importance of the reading and preaching of the Word of God in public worship, and of biblical meditation in private devotion. These things are not an intrusion into worship; they form the necessary foundation of it. God must speak to us before we can speak to him. He must disclose to us who he is before we can offer him what we are in acceptable worship. The worship of God is always a response to the Word of God. Scripture wonderfully directs and enriches our worship.
2. Faith. If every Christian is a worshipper, every Christian is also a believer. Indeed, the Christian life is a life of faith. ‘Where is your faith?’ Jesus asked the Twelve when they were afraid, and he exhorted them, ‘Have faith in God.’
But what is faith? It too is a response to the revelation of God. We can no more trust a God we do not know than we can worship an unknown God. Consider Psalm 9:10: ‘Those who know your name trust in you, for you, Lord, have never forsaken those who seek you.’ If worship is to ‘glory’ in God for who he is (his ‘name’), then faith is to ‘trust’ him because of who he is. So faith is neither naivety nor gullibility. It is neither illogical nor irrational. On the contrary, faith is a reasoning trust. It rests on knowledge, the knowledge of God’s name. Its reasonableness arises from the reliability of the God who is being trusted. It is never unreasonable to trust God, since a more trustworthy person does not exist.
Faith will grow therefore as we reflect on the character of God (who never lies) and on the covenant of God (who has pledged himself to his people). But how can we discover his character and covenant? Only from the Bible, in which these twin truths have been revealed. So the more we meditate on God’s self-disclosure in Scripture, the more mature our faith will become, whereas without Scripture our faith is bound to be weak and sickly.
3. Obedience. Jesus calls his disciples to a life of obedience, as well as one of worship and faith.
But how can we obey him, unless we know his will and commandments? Without a knowledge of these, obedience would be impossible. ‘If you love me, keep my commands,’ he said. And again, ‘Whoever has my commands [that is, knows them, and treasures them up in their mind and memory] and keeps them is the one who loves me.’
Once more, then, the Bible is seen to be indispensable to mature discipleship. For it is there that we learn the commands of Christ, and so take the first necessary step towards understanding and doing his will.
4. Hope. The Christian hope is a confident expectation regarding the future. No Christian can be a cynic or a pessimist. It is true that we do not believe human beings will ever succeed in building Utopia on earth. But, although we have little confidence in human achievement, we have great confidence in the purposes and power of God. We are certain that error and evil are not going to be allowed the last word. On the contrary, truth and righteousness will triumph in the end. For Jesus Christ is going to return in strength and splendour, the dead will be raised, death will be abolished, and the universe will be liberated from decay and saturated with glory.
But how can we be so sure of these things? There are no obvious grounds for such confidence. Evil flourishes. The wicked get away with their wickedness. The problems of the world appear intractable. Global warming overshadows the horizon. Is there not more reason for despair than for hope? Yes, there would be – if it were not for the Bible! It is the Bible which arouses, directs and nurtures hope. For Christian hope is quite different from secular optimism. It is a confidence in God, kindled by the promises of God. ‘Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess,’ the author of Hebrews exhorts his readers. Why? ‘For he who promised is faithful.’ Jesus himself said that he would come again. ‘People will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory . . . And you will see the Son of Man . . . coming on the clouds of heaven.’ It is promises like these that stimulate our hope. It is ‘in keeping with his promise’ that we are looking for a new world, in which righteousness will reign.
Here, then, are four basic ingredients of Christian discipleship – worship, faith, obedience and hope. All four would be irrational without an objective basis in God’s revelation, to which they are a response:
And God’s name, covenant, commands and promises are all found in Scripture. That is why Scripture is fundamental to Christian growth, and why submission to its authority is the way of mature discipleship.
Intellectual integrity
Second, submission to biblical authority is the way of intellectual integrity.
Many people would immediately deny this statement and even affirm the contrary. They cannot understand how apparently intelligent Christians in the modern era can possibly be so perverse as to believe in biblical inspiration and authority. They regard a commitment to the truth and trustworthiness of Scripture as untenable. They therefore charge those of us who hold to this with a lack of intellectual integrity. They accuse us of deliberate vagueness, mental schizophrenia, intellectual suicide and other equally horrid conditions. To these charges, however, we plead ‘not guilty’. We insist that our conviction about Scripture arises from the very integrity which our critics say we lack.
‘Integrity’ is the quality of an integrated person. In particular, integrated Christians are at peace, not at war, with themselves. Instead of being conscious of a dichotomy between our various beliefs, or between our beliefs and our behaviour, so that we are ‘torn apart’ inside, there is an inner harmony. We are ‘all of a piece’, or whole. What is the secret of this integration?
There is no more integrating Christian principle than the affirmation that ‘Jesus Christ is Lord’. The essence of integrated discipleship is that we both confess his lordship with our lips and enthrone him as Lord in our hearts. We assume the easy yoke of his teaching authority. We seek to ‘take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ’. And when Jesus is Lord of our beliefs, opinions, ambitions, standards, values and lifestyle, then we are integrated Christians, and ‘integrity’ marks our life. Only when he is Lord do we become whole.
But Jesus our Lord himself submitted to the Old Testament Scriptures. In his ethical conduct, in his understanding of his mission and in his public debates with contemporary religious leaders, his primary concern was to be true to Scripture. ‘What does the Scripture say?’ he would ask. It was always his final court of appeal. And he expected his disciples to follow his example in this. He also made provision for the Scriptures of the New Testament to be written, by choosing, calling, equipping and commissioning his apostles to be the teachers of the church, and he expected the church to submit to them. ‘Whoever listens to you listens to me,’ he said. As a result of this, submission to Scripture by Christian disciples is part and parcel of our submission to Jesus as Lord. For the disciple is not above his teacher. So we cannot let ourselves be comfortable with selective submission. It would be inherently illogical, for example, to agree with Jesus’ doctrine of God, but disagree with his view of the Word of God. No, selective submission is not authentic submission.
This gives us the clue we need regarding how to deal with the problems in the Bible. For in affirming the inspiration and authority of Scripture, I am not denying that there are problems. There are textual, literary, historical, scientific, philosophical, cultural, theological and moral problems. The observable phenomena of Scripture (which we see inductively in the pages of the Bible) sometimes seem to conflict with our doctrine of Scripture (which we hold deductively, inferring it from the attitude and teaching of Jesus). So what should we do with problems? How can we handle them with integrity?
We need to remember that every Christian doctrine raises problems. This includes the central doctrines of God (his being, creation, sovereignty, providence and justice), of Jesus Christ (his one person in two natures, his work of atonement, his bodily resurrection, present reign and future return) and of the Holy Spirit (his activity in the church and the world). Or take the love of God. It is a fundamental Christian doctrine. Every Christian without exception believes that God is love (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, Lutheran, Episcopal, Independent, Pentecostal). If they denied it, they would not be Christians. Yet the problems surrounding this belief are enormous: for example, the origin and spread of evil, the suffering of the innocent, the ‘silences’ of God and the ‘acts’ of God, the vastness of the universe, and the apparent insignificance of individual human beings.
Supposing somebody comes to us with a personal problem or dilemma (perhaps the birth of a disabled child, a natural disaster or a tragic bereavement) and challenges us: ‘Why should this happen to me? How can God be love if he allows this?’ How do we react? Do we say that, in order to preserve our intellectual integrity, we must suspend our belief in the love of God until we have solved the problem? I hope not. Nor do we sweep the problem under the carpet and try to forget it. No, instead, in addition to the question of how we should respond pastorally to our questioner, we wrestle with the problem in our own mind and heart. We think about it conscientiously, read about it, talk about it and pray about it. And during this process some light is thrown upon the problem. Yet some of the perplexity remains. So what next? The way of intellectual integrity, I suggest, is to retain our conviction about God’s love, in spite of the remaining difficulties, ultimately for one reason only, namely that Jesus our Lord himself taught it and exhibited it. It was because of Jesus that we came to believe in God’s love in the first place; it is for the same reason that we should continue to do so.
It is the same with problems relating to the Bible. We need to learn to face them as we face problems surrounding other Christian doctrines. If somebody comes to us with a biblical problem (a discrepancy, for example, between theology and science, or between two Gospel accounts, or a moral dilemma), what should we do? We should not (from a mistaken form of integrity) suspend our belief in the truth of Scripture until we have solved the problem. Nor should we place the problem on a shelf (indefinitely postponing its challenge) or under a carpet (permanently concealing it, even from ourselves). Instead, we should struggle conscientiously with the problem in thought, discussion and prayer. As we do so, some difficulties may be wholly or partly cleared up. But then, in spite of those which remain, we should retain our belief about Scripture on the ground that Jesus himself taught and exhibited it.
If a critic says to me, ‘You are an anti-intellectual to believe the Bible to be the Word of God in defiance of the problems’, I now return the compliment and say, ‘OK, if you like, I am. But then you are an anti-intellectual to believe in the love of God in defiance of the problems.’ Actually, however, to believe a Christian doctrine in spite of its problems, because of the acknowledged lordship of Jesus Christ, is not obscurantism (preferring darkness to light), but faith (trusting him who said he was the light of the world). It is more than faith; it is the sober, intellectual integrity of confessing Jesus as Lord.
Ecumenical progress
Third, submission to the authority of Scripture is the way of ecumenical progress, that is to say, the means by which to secure an acceptable coming together of churches.
Now I realize that some of my readers may have no desire to make any such progress. You may be (I am guessing) suspicious of the whole ecumenical movement. You can see (although it is always misleading to generalize) its tendency to doctrinal indifference, its attempt to reinterpret Christian mission in terms of socio-political action, and its leaning towards syncretism and universalism in the face of other faiths. Indeed, I understand your concerns, for I share them. There is much in contemporary ecumenism to perplex and even distress us.
Nevertheless, I am also disturbed by the blanket condemnation of ecumenical activity expressed by a large section of the evangelical constituency. It is clear to me that we cannot simply dismiss the whole non-evangelical section of Christianity as if it did not exist, or, since it does exist, regard it as non-Christian and resolve to have nothing to do with it. Jesus our Lord prayed that his people might be one, in order that the world might believe, and his apostle Paul urges us to ‘make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace’.
There is, of course, room for disagreement among us regarding what shape Christian unity should take. But it should be possible to agree that competition between different churches is inappropriate, and that the visible unity of the church in some form is a desirable goal. In his reply to a letter from Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1552, John Calvin wrote as follows:
Doubtless it must be counted among the greatest misfortunes of our century that churches are thus separated from each other . . . and that the holy communion of the members of Christ, which many confess with their mouth, is only sincerely sought after by few . . . From this it follows that the members being so scattered, the body of the church lies bleeding. This affects me so deeply, that, if anybody could see that I might be of any use, I should not hesitate to cross ten seas for this business, if that were needful . . . Indeed, if learned men were to seek a solid and carefully devised agreement according to the rule of Scripture, an agreement by which the separated churches should unite with each other, I think that for my part I ought not to spare any trouble or dangers.
Calvin’s letter to Cranmer is significant, not only because of the goal he had in view (the uniting of separated churches), but also because of the means he proposed (agreement according to the rule of Scripture). For the unity Christ himself desires for his church is certainly a unity in truth. His prayer recorded in John 17 clearly links the two. The church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ himself as the chief cornerstone, and it will certainly not grow in size or stability by neglecting, let alone undermining, its foundation.
The one apostolic faith that unites us has, of course, come down to us in the New Testament, and no union of churches could or should be contemplated which deviates from this rule. In particular, one of the greatest obstacles to unity has been the failure to distinguish between Scripture and tradition. Jesus himself drew a clear distinction between written Scripture and the oral tradition of the elders, making the latter subordinate to the former, and even went so far as to reject tradition as ‘human rules’ so that Scripture as the Word of God might have the supremacy. The very same distinction needs to be made today. Yet an example of why some church unity schemes have failed is the tendency of Anglican or Episcopal churches to insist on a particular view of the ‘historic episcopate’ (church government through bishops) as non-negotiable. One can understand the historical reasons for this, and I myself would want to defend an episcopal form of government as a pastoral ideal that is consistent with Scripture and conducive to the health of the church. But one cannot insist on it as indispensable, since it belongs to the tradition of the church, and is not required by Scripture.
If only we could agree that Scripture is ‘God’s Word written’ (Anglican Article XX), that it is supreme in its authority over all human traditions, however venerable, and that it must be allowed to reform and renew the church, we would take an immediate leap forward in ecumenical relationships. Reformation according to the Word of God is indispensable to reunion.
Effective evangelism
Fourth, submission to the authority of Scripture is the way of faithful and effective evangelism. My argument so far has been domestic and ecclesiastical, as we have thought about personal discipleship and church relations. All the time the world outside is in great confusion and darkness. Has the church any light for this darkness, any word of hope for the bewildered modern world?
One of the tragedies of the contemporary church is that just when the world seems to be ready to listen, the church often seems to have little to say. For the church itself is confused. It shares the current bewilderment, instead of addressing it. The church is insecure, uncertain of its identity, mission and message. It stammers and stutters when it should be proclaiming the gospel with boldness. Indeed, the major reason for its diminishing influence in the West is its diminishing faith.
A recovery of evangelism is impossible without a recovery of the evangel, ‘the good news’. For evangelism, according to its simplest definition, is ‘sharing the evangel’. So biblical evangelism is impossible without the biblical evangel. Evangelism has to be defined in terms of the evangel itself.
We should be able to agree that Christian witness is essentially witness to Christ, and that the only authentic Christ is the Christ of the apostolic witness. For the apostles were the original witnesses, the eyewitnesses, so our witness, vital though it is, always remains secondary to theirs. We have no authority to edit their gospel. Our calling is rather to preserve it like stewards, proclaim it like heralds and argue it like advocates.
In his book Go and Make Disciples, David Read, the former minister of Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church in New York, wrote, ‘Those of us who enjoy visiting other countries are familiar with that solemn moment when at the frontier we encounter a customs official who . . . fixes us with steely eyes and asks “Have you anything to declare?” I have not yet had the nerve to answer “Yes, as a minister of the gospel, it is my duty to declare that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Saviour”.’ So David Read calls his final chapter ‘The Crux: Have You Anything to Declare?’ It is lack of conviction about the gospel, he writes, which makes ‘most of us . . . reluctant evangelists’.
I agree. I think there is no chance of the church taking its evangelistic task seriously unless it first recovers its confidence in the truth, relevance and power of the gospel, and begins to get excited about it again. For this, however, it will have to return to the Bible in which the gospel has been revealed.
Personal humility
Fifth, submission to the authority of Scripture is the way of personal Christian humility. Nothing is more obnoxious in those of us who claim to follow Jesus Christ than arrogance, and nothing is more appropriate or attractive than humility. And an essential element in Christian humility is the willingness to hear and receive God’s Word. Perhaps the greatest of all our needs is to take our place again humbly, quietly and expectantly at the feet of Jesus Christ, in order to listen attentively to his Word, and to believe and obey it. For we have no freedom to disbelieve or disobey him.
The ultimate issue before us and the whole church is whether Jesus Christ is Lord (as we say he is) or not. The question is whether Christ is Lord of the church (to teach and command it), or the church is lord of Christ (to edit and manipulate his teaching). In the contemporary crisis of authority in the world, and loss of authority in the church, my plea is that we return to a humble submission to Scripture as God’s Word. We must submit to Scripture out of a humble submission to Jesus Christ as Lord, who himself humbly submitted to Scripture in his own faith, life, mission and teaching.
In so doing, we will find the way of mature discipleship and intellectual integrity, the way to unite churches and evangelize the world, and the way to express a proper humility before our Lord Jesus Christ. That is what I mean by the ‘wholesomeness’ of submitting to the authority of Scripture.