In real life conservative, rigid, and liberal Bible readers are pretty fluid in their application of it

The Bible

Billy had been struggling for a long while with the status and authority of the Bible. Himself prone and taking a liking to science, he’d observed that not few fellow believers seemed to oppose anything reeking of research and defended their often rigid attitude by stating that everything we can and want to know about anything can be found in the Bible. All else out there is either from the devil or at least debatable and should be mistrusted. In addition, it seemed to Billy that believers are quite good at finding texts that are promoted to their personal favorites, and/or texts that say what they want or prefer to hear. He couldn't make heads or tails of it.
I have yet to find out whether this helped Billy at all, but here's what I wrote to him:

Sola Scriptura vs. Fluidum Scriptura

When around 1520 the yoke of the Catholic Church was shed through the process of what we know as the Reformation, foundations for that reformed, protestant faith had to be articulated and established into a system. One of those foundations was "Sola Scriptura" (there are four other sola’s); the idea that the Bible is the only authority for faith and Christian faith practice; the Bible is complete, authoritative, and true.

In the first centuries A.D., scholars and church officials were trying to make up their minds about which book should or shouldn’t be part of what became known as the canon of the Bible. That discussion was concluded around the fifth century and the canon, or yardstick, was a fact. That canon was then tied together with a firm ribbon around this consolidated package and the text from 2 Timothy 3:16 had to be seen as the signature of God among the whole, and sealing the deal: "Every scripture is 'God-inspired' and is therefore useful for teaching, for rebutting errors, for the improvement of morals, and for the education of a righteous life..." (2 Timothy 3:16).

It was assumed that this canon was composed by God's hand and its content accurate to double digits after the comma. However, the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox saw a larger hand of God and included ten additional books in their canon. So, in fact, the canon was only semi-resolved unless one decides that the Catholics and Eastern-Orthodox blokes are all heretics and dead wrong.

Now the idea of Sola Scriptura is quite embedded in the Protestant bloodlines, but in practice Sola Scriptura often has to compete with traditions and the personal experience of faith. That’s called ‘Prima Scriptura’; traditions and experiences are authoritative as long as they Scripture proofed. In practice, that test turns out to be rather fluid. One example: Protestantism has made a significant contribution to developing, maintaining and even Scripture proofing the idea of (open) market forces where profit is the guiding principle and in which as a result the “have-nots” such as orphans, widows, and other marginal groups have to settle for a place under the market stall at the discretion of profit-hungry market stall owners (and their shareholders), the “haves”.

What the Bible has to say about inequality is cunningly massaged away and skillfully maneuvered towards the sewers. 'Scriptura Fluidum' would therefore be a more accurate summary of how the Bible is interpreted. Trying to make heads and tails of it requires a body but that body has been filtered out by the market theologians.

The essence of the Bible

What if there wasn't a Bible? Could there be a sense of God, even if that were nothing more than a realization, or assumption that there is "something more"? I assume for a moment that the answer to this question is 'yes'. Then we have to start shaping and describing that idea. Most people are somewhere in the continuum where on the one hand we find the "there is nothing" group on the one hand and on the other hand the group that provides you with “an accurate and detailed description of God” with its exclusive statements, claim, and even a willingness to give their lives for it and, of course, take the lives of others.

With the Bible, we have a collection of 66 books that together form the great story of God. A story that has a beginning and an end and in which Christ is the centerpiece. In that story, we read how, in order to live a flourishing life, we as human beings are to relate to God, each other, and the earth. However, man's ears are bent elsewhere, resulting in an ever-increasing alienation from God, the other, and the earth. This is a prominent theme throughout the Bible. The solution can also be found in that same Bible, but it seems that the price tag that comes with that solution is too dear to many. To stop "taking" seems too big of an ask.

This, in some very broad brushstrokes, is what the Bible Is about.

What it's essentially not

Disputes, discord, rifts, and exclusive group forming are almost always the results of approaching, interpreting, and applying the Bible for what it is not:

• A scientific textbook (although it has crucial things to say about the origin of the planet, the cosmos, and man)
• A book on history (although it contributes a lot to it and this contribution is massive).
• A biology textbook (although it does contribute very valid ideas about biology).
• A math book (there’s a bit of numerology in it, that’s undeniable).
• A textbook on economics (although it makes a fundamental contribution to ideas about establishing a flourishing economy in which the well-being of all is leading).
• A cookbook (although it does contribute to ideas about diets).
• .....

When one elevates one of the many topics on which the Bible can constructively contribute to the conversation about the essence of things, but claims this as the only authoritative contribution, two things happen:

1. One will no longer be considered a serious interlocutor and will not be able to contribute to that conversation in a constructive way.

2. It dilutes the essential story of the Bible that provides a solution to the major human issues.

This relatively compressed and at times indiscriminate overview is what I sent Billy. Billy has a short attention span and I’m afraid this might be too much text for him. My suspicion is that it's going to raise even more questions and won’t bring heads and tails that much closer. The main thing is that we keep looking for the body.

I'm waiting for a response from Billy.

This is the third blog in a series of five about Billy Bobsleigh leaving the church.

1. How Billy Bobsleigh got burned
2. Possibly to blame for Bill's burn 1: God
3. Possibly to blame for Bill's burn 2: The Bible
4. Possibly to blame for Bill's burn3: The church (next blog)
5. Possibly to blame for Bill's burn 4: Billy (next blog after the next...)

Photo: congerdesign  pixabay