Baptists and the Bible in the Twenty-First Century

015 Baptists and the Bible in the Twenty-First Century 1 | P a g e

Baptists & the Bible in the Twenty-first Century

Introduction

From a historical perspective, Baptists are Biblicists, except when they are not. Then they

often split.1

Bill Leonard’s wry and humorous observation gives reason to pause for those who consider

themselves “People of the Book.” It suggests a possible arbitrariness in Baptist commitment

to scripture, and acknowledges the sometimes fractious attitudes Baptists hold towards others

with whom they disagree, even if those others are fellow Baptists. Leonard agrees with the

commonplace that biblicism has been a central feature of Baptist identity since the earliest

days of the movement, and that “the Bible was the primary source of inspiration and authority

for congregations and individual believers.”2 Nevertheless, says Leonard, this commitment to

the normative authority of scripture for faith, theology and practice has been decisively

modified throughout Baptist history by a variety of hermeneutical moves in the face of

inevitable theological and cultural dilemmas.

What do Baptists do when sola scriptura and sola fide collide? When biblical authority or

literalism crashes headlong into piety and practice, culture and conflict, what then? When

such theological or cultural dilemmas inevitably occur, many Baptists adapt, even change,

their theology, while clinging to the rhetoric of an uncompromised biblicism. And, being

Baptists, when such differences occur, they often split, creating new communities gathered

around diverse interpretations of pivotal texts.3

Leonard surveys a variety of issues in Baptist history such as the theological issues that arose

around the mission theology of Andrew Fuller and William Carey, cultural accommodation

in the American South around slavery, and the triumph of piety over literalism during the

Temperance Movement. He concludes that hermeneutical pluralism is inherent in Baptist life

and no theories about the biblical text can “protect Baptists (or anyone else) from the power

and unpredictability of the text itself,”4 to say nothing of the readers of the text and their more

or less faithful or Spirit-illuminated interpretations. Further, all interpretations stand under the

1 Bill Leonard, The Challenge of Being Baptist: Owning a Scandalous Past and an Uncertain Future (Waco:

Baylor, 2010), 72. 2 Ibid., 55.

3 Ibid., 60.

4 Ibid., 72. This hermeneutical pluralism is not, of course, peculiar to Baptists. Christian Smith has recently

argued that such hermeneutical pluralism is “pervasive” in evangelicalism, and locates the source of this

phenomenon in scripture itself, which he contends is “multivocal, polysemous, and multivalent in nature”—

more simply: scripture speaks with multiple voices. The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism is Not a Truly

Evangelical Reading of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2011), 21.


judgement of peers, history, and ultimately the Lord. Thus hermeneutical humility and

methodological modesty are the order of the day as we approach the biblical text.

Concern and even dispute regarding the nature and interpretation of the Bible has also been

part of the Vose story.5 Such concern will likely continue as long Baptists and other

Christians continue to read scripture, for as already noted, interpretative pluralism seems

inevitable. In a 1969 editorial a series of pertinent questions are put in Preach the Word, the

BTCWA magazine:

Will our College produce men who “will turn away from listening to the truth and wander

into myths” or will it produce men who can “preach the word, convince, rebuke and

exhort” and “be unfailing in patience and in teaching”? On the other hand will our College

be accused of insularity and obscurantism or will it produce students who know their way

around in the theological world? Will our students be brittle Bibliolaters who have nothing

to say to the modern world—bruised reeds that snap in the first waft of secular wind—or

will they continue to breathe in an atmosphere of robust conservative scholarship during

their years of training?6

These questions indicate that from its earliest days, the college sought to hold and walk a

steady and faithful line between the Scylla of theological liberalism and the Charybdis of an

unreflective and “brittle bibliolatry.” The crucial necessity of holding this line is the

requirement of faithful gospel proclamation and ministry in the face of—and in engagement

with—a modern, secular and often hostile world. The whole citation exhibits a primary

conviction concerning the authority of scripture, and a further conviction that the steady and

faithful line will be found “in an atmosphere of robust conservative scholarship,” that is, a

scholarship that also holds the primary conviction. What, then, is the ground of this primary

conviction, especially if it is not simply the fruit of “insularity and obscurantism,” or a

“brittle bibliolatry”? How might contemporary Baptists conceive of the authority of the

Bible, especially given our increasing awareness of “pervasive interpretive pluralism”? More

importantly, how might contemporary Baptists—and other Christians—actually acknowledge

and defer to this authority in personal and congregational practice?

The remainder of this essay constitutes an initial exploration of these critical questions. The

paper begins by analysing the relevant sections of the Baptist Faith and Message, the formal

Confession of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in the United States, and the largest

5 See Richard Moore’s essay in this volume: “BTCWA under Dr Noel Vose: The Faculty of Three Era (1979—

1990).” 6 “Not Finished Yet” in Preach the Word Vol. 1, No. 5 (1969), 1. As noted in the editors’ introduction, although

Arthur Payne was editor of the magazine at the time, he recollects that the editorial was probably written by

Noel Vose.


Baptist association in the world. This Confession is chosen because it exists in three iterations

(1925, 1963 and 2000), and as such provides interesting insights into shifts in Baptist

understanding of scripture—as represented by the SBC—over the course of the twentieth-

century. By happy historical accident the second iteration was given in the same year Vose

Seminary was founded. The Baptist Faith and Message, however, constitutes only one model

of understanding the authority of scripture. Therefore, several other recent proposals from

American and British Baptists are surveyed in an endeavour to delineate the lines of a viable

understanding of biblical authority for Baptists in the twenty-first century.7

Baptist Faith and Message

A comparison of Article I in the Baptist Faith and Message (2000) with the same article in

the earlier versions indicates a model of biblical authority being pressed in the present.8

1925 … We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a

perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end,

and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter; that it reveals the principles by

which God will judge us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true

center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds

and religious opinions should be tried.

1963 … The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is the record of God’s

revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its

author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. It

reveals the principles by which God judges us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end

of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all

human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried. The criterion by which the

Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.

2000 … The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is […] God’s revelation

of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author,

salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all

scripture is totally true and trustworthy. It reveals the principles by which God judges us;

and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union,

and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions

should be tried. [...] All scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of

divine revelation.

The 2000 version of the confession reflects the outcome of the bitter divide in the SBC from

1979-1993. It is noteworthy that the two statements inserted in the 1963 version, both of

7 An earlier draft of this paper was presented at Whitley College in Melbourne for the Australian Baptist

Research Forum, on June 27, 2011, and at Vose Seminary for the Australian College of Theology Department of

Christian Thought meeting on December 3, 2012. I am grateful for colleagues at both events for their warm

reception and thoughtful feedback on the ideas discussed there. 8 Joe Early, Readings in Baptist History: Four Centuries of Selected Documents (Nashville: Broadman, 2008),

236-237. Please note that emphasis and brackets are added to indicate additions and deletions to the previous

version of the confession.


which bear Barthian echoes, have now been either modified or deleted, and an additional

statement has been inserted. No longer is the Bible simply the record of God’s revelation, but

it is God’s revelation; no longer is Jesus Christ the hermeneutical criterion of scripture, but

more simply, the focus of divine revelation. The first alteration serves to bolster the authority

of the Bible itself by identifying it as divine revelation in place of it being the record of the

revelatory activity and speech of God in the history of salvation. This identification of

scripture as divine revelation is then further strengthened with the explicit affirmation that

therefore all scripture is totally true and trustworthy. This addition captures the disputed

concept of inerrancy without using the term itself, making explicit the implicit claim included

since 1925 that the Bible has “truth, without any mixture of error, as its matter.”

The second amendment constitutes a hermeneutical shift. According to Joseph Wooddell, the

“criterion” statement was deleted because it was “problematic and unhelpful” mainly on

account of various putative interpretations and “the Barthian or neo-orthodox influence on

that statement.”9 Admittedly the phrase “the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted

is Jesus Christ” itself requires interpretation. Herschel Hobbs, chair of the 1963 confession

review committee interpreted the phrase saying, “any interpretation of a given passage must

be made in light of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ and his teachings and redemptive

work.”10

Former SBC president Russell Dilday explains:

This theological principle, expressed in the Christocentric language of BFM63 … declares

that the guiding key to Biblical interpretation is Jesus Christ. Through Him as a criterion,

or standard, the Bible becomes unified, self-consistent and coherent. … We are to interpret

the Old Testament and the rest of the Bible in the light of the life and teachings of Jesus in

the New Testament, illuminated by our own direct experience with the living Christ. It is

through Jesus as the criterion that we interpret the Old Testament prophecies, the

ceremonial, civil, dietary, and moral laws of the Old Testament. As Martin Luther insisted,

the Bible is always to be understood from its center – its heart – its Christ.11

The result of the change is to insist that all interpretation of scripture testifies of Jesus,

whereas the former expression indicates that all interpretation must be measured by

christological criteria: the life and works, message and mission of the person of Jesus. Bruce

9 Joseph D. Wooddell, “The Scriptures” in The Baptist Faith and Message 2000: Critical Issues in America’s

Largest Protestant Denomination, Douglas K. Blount, & Joseph D. Wooddell (eds), 1-11 (Lanham, Md.:

Rowman & Littlefield, 2007), 8-9. 10

Wooddell, “The Scriptures,” 7. 11

Russell Dilday, “An Analysis of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.”

www.centerforbaptiststudies.org/hotissues/dildayfm2000.htm (accessed: May 5, 2010).

http://www.centerforbaptiststudies.org/hotissues/dildayfm2000.htm


Prescott sees in the phrase a submission of the entire hermeneutical enterprise to the lordship

of Jesus Christ.12

In addition to the developments in Article I, the issue of biblical authority is also implicitly

addressed in the preamble to the confession. The original confession (1925) was given with

explicit statements declaring that the purpose of the confession was “general instruction and

guidance” for Southern Baptists and other interested persons, but was not to be regarded as

complete, final or infallible. The sole authority for faith and practice amongst Baptists

remained the scriptures, and the confession was a guide for “interpretation, having no

authority over the conscience,” and was “not to be used to hamper freedom of thought or

investigation in other realms of life.”13

The 1963 preamble claims that the committee did not

delete anything from or add to the basic contents of its predecessor (including the criterion

phrase!). But the preamble does add several phrases. First the confessions “are not intended

to add anything to the simple conditions of salvation.”14

Second, the confessions

Have never been regarded as complete, infallible statement of faith, nor as official creeds

carrying mandatory authority. Thus this generation of Southern Baptists is in historic

succession of intent and purpose as it endeavours to state for its time and theological

climate those articles of the Christian faith which are most surely held among us.15

Third, the preamble states that

Baptists are a people who profess a living faith. This faith is rooted and grounded in Jesus

Christ who is “the same yesterday, and today, and forever.” Therefore, the sole authority

for faith and practice among Baptists is Jesus Christ whose will is revealed in the Holy

scriptures.16

Thus, in accordance with the criterion phrase, the 1963 confession establishes the primary

authority of Jesus Christ mediated through the derivative authority of the scriptures.

The 2000 Confession adds a number of illuminating phrases to the preamble:

Throughout our history we have been a confessional people, adopting statements of faith as

a witness to our beliefs and a pledge of our faithfulness to the doctrines revealed in Holy

scripture. Our confessions of faith are rooted in historical precedent, as the church in every

age has been called upon to define and defend its beliefs … guarding the treasury of

truth… Now faced with a culture hostile to the very notion of truth, this generation of

Baptists must claim anew the eternal truths of the Christian faith … affirming together both

12

Bruce Prescott, “An Unconscionable Confession: The 2000 B F & M.”

http://www.centerforbaptiststudies.org/pamphlets/freedom/confession.htm (accessed: May 5, 2010). 13

Early, Readings, 231-232. 14

Ibid., 232. 15

Ibid., 235. 16

Ibid., 234.

http://www.centerforbaptiststudies.org/pamphlets/freedom/confession.htm


our liberty in Christ and our accountability to each other under the Word of God. Baptist

churches, associations, and general bodies have adopted confessions of faith as a witness to

the world, and as instruments of doctrinal accountability. … These are doctrines we hold

precious and as essential to the Baptist tradition of faith and practice. … Our living faith is

established upon eternal truths.17

Although much of the language in the 2000 Confession is similar to what has gone before,

there are also evident changes. Both preambles speak of its generation of Baptists standing

“in historic succession” as they present their confession of faith. In 1963 the focus of this

historic succession is the refusal of the convention to mandate the confession as binding on

the conscience. The language is used in the 2000 Confession, however, with reference to the

setting forth of doctrinal standards. While the earlier statements regarding the non-binding

nature of the confessions is retained in 2000, the 1963 statement’s denial of its carrying

“mandatory authority” has been dropped, and the confession is now an instrument of

“doctrinal accountability,” a “pledge of our faithfulness to the doctrines revealed in Holy

scripture,” and an “affirmation of our accountability to each other under the Word of God.”

Most seriously, instead of a living faith rooted and grounded in Jesus Christ, it is now

“established upon eternal truths.”

So what model of biblical authority is operative in the Baptist Faith and Message (2000)?

The authority of scripture is affirmed in a twofold way. First, scripture is authoritative on

account of its nature as divine revelation, without mixture of error, and totally true and

trustworthy. Second, the preamble indicates that scripture is authoritative as a source of

revealed doctrines and eternal truths. Thus scripture is, in itself, a normative authority

revealing normative doctrinal positions, and evidently presupposing a normative

hermeneutical method for the discovery, affirmation and application of those doctrinal truths.

Because scripture is God’s revelation objectively given, Christian faith and theology is a

matter of explicating the contents of the Bible is a systematic fashion to inform Christians

and others as to their responsibilities in terms of their beliefs and lifestyles.

The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship

In August 1990, after eleven years of in-house SBC division and politicking, a group of

former SBC “moderates,” frustrated with the “fundamentalist takeover” and their own

inability to “find a voice” in the SBC system, formed the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship

17

Early, Reading, 230-235.


(CBF).18

In their initial public statement the CBF included among their reasons for

establishing a new Baptist group the following:

Many of our differences come from a different understanding and interpretation of Holy

Scripture. But the difference is not at the point of the inspiration or authority of the Bible.

We interpret the Bible differently. … We also, however, have a different understanding of

the nature of the Bible. We want to be biblical—especially in our view of the Bible. That

means that we dare not claim less for the Bible than the Bible claims for itself. The Bible

neither claims nor reveals inerrancy as a Christian teaching. Bible claims must be based on

the Bible, not on human interpretations.19

In a later document entitled Who We Are, the CBF detailed their core values.20

The first value

listed was “Baptist Principles” which consisted of four “freedoms”: soul freedom, Bible

freedom, church freedom, and religious freedom. The first two freedoms are enumerated as

follows:

Soul Freedom—We believe in the priesthood of all believers. We affirm the freedom and

responsibility of every person to relate directly to God without the imposition of creed or

the control of clergy or government.

Bible Freedom—We believe in the authority of Scripture. We believe the Bible, under the

Lordship of Christ, is central to the life of the individual and the church. We affirm the

freedom and right of every Christian to interpret and apply Scripture under the leadership

of the Holy Spirit.21

Further, in a statement regarding lifelong learning and ministry, the CBF averred that

We are committed to Baptist theological education that affords intellectual and spiritual

freedom to both students and professors in an atmosphere of reverence for biblical

authority and respect for open inquiry and responsible scholarship.22

These statements clearly show that the CBF have adopted a model of biblical authority on

different grounds to the new leadership of the SBC and the Baptist Faith and Message

(2000). Inerrancy is explicitly rejected as a human construct and an unbiblical imposition

onto the nature of scripture, and the basis of the authority of scripture for the CBF is its

divine inspiration, and its apparent function as the means through which the Lordship of

Jesus Christ is exercised in the life of the individual and the church.

This authority is perhaps compromised, however, in the interaction of two Baptist

distinctives—individual liberty (‘soul freedom’) and biblical authority (‘Bible freedom’). The

18

Ibid., 219-228. 19

Ibid., 221. 20

See also http://www.thefellowship.info/About-Us/Who-We-Are. Accessed June 26, 2011. 21

Early, Readings, 225-226. 22

Ibid., 227.

http://www.thefellowship.info/About-Us/Who-We-Are


CBF statement of values lists the former first, apparently giving it precedence over the latter.

Indeed, the second freedom enumerated is not the freedom of the Bible per se, but the

freedom of the believer to interpret and apply scripture directly and without any imposition of

creed or clergy, given that such imposition violates the individual’s freedom of conscience

before God. It appears, therefore, that liberty is predicated primarily of the individual.23

While

this assertion of individual liberty is certainly moderated by the phrase ‘under the leadership

of the Holy Spirit,’ communal functions of discerning the Spirit’s voice are missing.24

This

respect for the integrity of the individual is extended to the realm of theological education

and academic freedom, an issue which became a source of great contention in the Southern

Baptist Convention institutions.25

Prescott regards the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message as a fundamental betrayal of the Baptist

principle of freedom of conscience.

The 2000 BF&M redefines “soul competency.” It makes every soul accountable to the

church for his/her beliefs and actions. Southern Baptists are now “accountable to each

other under the word of God.” Rather than reading and interpreting Scripture for

themselves, twenty-first century Southern Baptists will be holding each other accountable

for adhering to the official interpretations of Scripture that have been codified in the

2000BF&M.26

Re-Envisioning Baptist Identity: A Manifesto

In May 1997 a diverse group of Baptists, including James McClendon, Stanley Grenz, Barry

Harvey, Roger Olson, Glen Stassen, and Jonathon Wilson, issued “Re-Envisioning Baptist

Identity: A Manifesto for Baptist Communities in North America.”27

This Manifesto

understood the Baptist heritage primarily in terms of freedom, faithfulness and community,

and contained five affirmations followed by a conclusion. The Manifesto clearly views the

23

It is worth noting here Timothy George’s argument that the concept of the priesthood of all believers became

individualised under the influence of Hegel and Schleiermacher. Then, in Baptist circles, it became conflated

with soul competency and notions of religious liberty and freedom, leading to what George terms a ‘devastating

impact’ as individualism became the key principle of twentieth-century Baptist ecclesiology. See George T.,

“The Priesthood of All Believers” in P. Basden & D. S. Dockery (eds.) The People of God: Essays on the

Believers’ Church (Nashville: Broadman, 1991), 91. The error here is a confusion of categories. To equate the

priesthood of all believers with soul competency is to confuse soteriology and ecclesiology with anthropology. 24

See, for example, 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 and 1 Corinthians 14:29. While these texts refer explicitly to

discerning and judging the content of spiritual gifts, it seems appropriate to extend the principle to all claims of

the Spirit’s speech, including biblical interpretation. 25

See the discussion in David S. Dockery, Southern Baptist Consensus and Renewal (Nashville: B&H

Academic, 2008, 134-167, especially 146-148. 26

Prescott, Unconscionable. 27

“Re-Envisioning Baptist Identity: A Manifesto for Baptist Communities in North America,” Perspectives in

Religious Studies 24:3 (Fall 1997), 303-310.


Anabaptist tradition as determinative for Baptist identity, and its strengths are its affirmation

of faithful discipleship to Jesus Christ through the scriptures, and the idea of a free believers’

church living faithfully under the present lordship of Christ independent of civil authorities

and cultural idols.

The first affirmation concerned the place of scripture in the life of the believing community.

The Manifesto is a conscious reaction against both models of biblical authority previously

outlined.

We reject all forms of authoritarian interpretation, whether they come from the ranks of the

academy or the clergy. Consequently, we deny that the Bible can be read as Scripture by

any so-called scientific or objective interpretive method … apart from the gospel and the

community in which the gospel is proclaimed. Scripture wisely forbids and we reject every

form of private interpretation that makes Bible reading a practice which can be carried out

according to the dictates of individual conscience.28

In place of both these models the Manifesto affirms

Bible study in reading communities. … We thus affirm an open and orderly process

whereby faithful communities deliberate together over the Scriptures with sisters and

brothers of the faith, excluding no light from any source. When all exercise their gifts and

callings, when every voice is heard and weighed, when no one is silenced or privileged, the

Spirit leads communities to read wisely and to practice faithfully the direction of the

gospel.29

For the authors of the Manifesto, the authoritarian restriction of biblical interpretation and

academic freedom by coercive hierarchies, and individual libertarian freedom severed from

the concrete believing community, are both wrong-headed. This model of biblical authority

posits the locus of that authority in the living voice of the Holy Spirit who speaks to the

believing community gathered under the lordship of Christ. Scripture has a derivative

authority, grounded not in itself per se, but as the instrumental means through which the Holy

Spirit speaks.

One of the catalysts for the Manifesto, James McClendon, offers a penetrating insight into

Baptist biblicism, suggesting that at the core of Baptist faith is the idea of “shared awareness

of the present Christian community as the primitive community and the eschatological

community.”30

28

Manifesto, 305. 29

Ibid., 304-305. 30

McClendon, Ethics, 30, original emphasis. The “as” in this sentence is all-important, serving as the underlying

hermeneutical criterion which gives McClendon’s theological vision its central focus and power.


This is not merely a reading strategy by which the church can understand Scripture; it is a

way—for us, it is the way—of Christian existence itself. For my thesis here in brief is that

just such a reading of the Bible and especially of the New Testament, read as interpreting

the present situation, is characteristic of the baptist vision wherever we find it; … I claim,

in sum, that the vision so understood is a necessary and sufficient organizing principle for

a (baptist) theology.31

By construing the fundamental Baptist vision in this way McClendon suggests that the

authority of scripture consists in its eschatological, self-involving, narratival character.

Baptists read scripture as their own story continued into the present, interpreting their own

context and situation in light of the biblical narrative. They belong to the same God as God’s

biblical people. For McClendon, the authority of scripture for Baptists is lodged in their

unique patterns of using scripture, in accordance with their communal practices and guiding

vision.32

A Sacramental Approach?

Recently, British Baptists have proposed a similar though not identical approach to the

authority of scripture. For example, Stephen Holmes uses the first clause of the Baptist Union

of Scotland Declaration of Principle (1904) to argue for a distinctively Baptist way of reading

scripture, distinguished from other Protestants who adopt sola scriptura.33

That the Lord Jesus Christ our God and Saviour is the sole and absolute Authority in all

matters pertaining to faith and practice, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and that each

Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer his

laws.34

In Holmes’ argument, scripture is read and interpreted communally under the guidance of the

Holy Spirit, with the aim of obedience rather than “faith” or correct doctrine. The authority of

scripture does not inhere in the Bible as such—something more common in American

confessions, says Holmes—but it rather mediates the personal authority and living voice of

Jesus Christ—a more British confessional emphasis. Authority, therefore, is not a legal

reality, but is rather relational, immediate and personal. On this basis, the credentials required

for interpretation are not historical, philological or exegetical skill, but a humble openness to

gather with other believers to hear what Jesus might say to his people. “This suggests to me,”

31

Ibid., 33, original emphasis. Note that McClendon uses a small “b” in order to indicate a generic “baptistic”

vision, thus including Free Church communities who are not actually capital-B Baptists. 32

McClendon, Ethics, 26. 33

S.R. Holmes, “Baptists and the Bible” Baptist Quarterly Vol. 43, No. 7, July 2010, 410-427. 34

Holmes, “Baptists,” 414.


says Holmes, “that our Baptist vision is actually in principle opposed to any formal account

of biblical hermeneutics, if we mean by that a definition of right and wrong ways to read the

Bible.”35

Hermeneutics and academic study are not wrong, nor is individual study of the

scriptures. Nevertheless,

Personally, I would understand this in a quasi-sacramental way, suggesting that Scripture

comes with some sort of promise attached, that God’s Spirit will be present revealing

God’s Christ to anyone who comes to the text humbly, honestly and prayerfully … the

point remains that the understanding of Scripture is still a gift of grace, not something

naturally available to us. … The meaning of Scripture is more available in an ecclesial

context than in an academic one.36

Holmes’ understanding of the “quasi-sacramental” function of scripture is not unique. In

January 2009 an international group of Baptist scholars gathered in a colloquium in Cardiff,

UK, to explore the theory and practice of Baptist hermeneutics, how Baptists have used and

interpreted scripture, how they have understood the nature, authority and function of

scripture, and how they might navigate the troubled waters of inevitable “pervasive

interpretative plurality,” especially given the traditional Baptist conviction of freedom of

conscience in matters of biblical interpretation.37

Several of those who presented essays at this

colloquium advocated a sacramental model of scripture. For example, John Colwell argues

that what distinguishes scripture is the promise of God’s presence and speaking through this

means of grace when God’s people engage in the reading and hearing of scripture.38

Although

the church can never presume upon this divine presence and speaking since God remains

sovereignly free, it may pray for and expectantly hope for it:

If my reading and hearing of Holy Scripture is in response to sacramental promise (and if it

is this alone that renders Scripture as Scripture) then as with my approach to Holy Baptism

and Holy Communion, my reading and hearing of Scripture must be humble, prayerful,

and expectant; it must occur in the context of worship; it is inherently a communal and

ecclesial act—a sacramental understanding of Holy Scripture demands a liturgical and

doxological hermeneutic. … [O]ur concern in the reading and hearing of Scripture is not

primarily with meaning but with outcome, with sacramental formation through these texts

rather than with historical and structural analysis of them.39

This does not mean, of course, that academic examination of the scriptures using historical

and literary analysis is invalid. It does mean that such analysis is never an end in itself, but

35

Ibid., 421. 36

Ibid., 417. 37

See H. Dare & S. Woodman (eds), The “Plainly Revealed” Word of God? Baptist Hermeneutics in Theory

and Practice (Macon, GA.; Mercer University Press, 2011). 38

J.E. Colwell, “The Word of His Grace: What’s So Distinctive About Scripture?” in, Dare & Woodman (eds),

The “Plainly Revealed” Word of God?, 203. 39

Colwell, “The Word of His Grace,” 206, 208.


serves the end for which scripture was given: to be a vehicle through which the church and

the believer are “encountered by the authority of the risen Christ mediated through the

scriptures with an outcome that is transformative for faith and practice.”40

Thus for Colwell,

divine encounter and spiritual transformation occur through the text rather than by the text.

So too Ian Birch argues for the primal, primary, over-arching authority of Jesus Christ as the

full and final authority for the church and believer. Any authority scripture has is grounded in

this preeminent authority of Christ who is within, through, above and before scripture. Jesus

Christ is the hermeneutical key of scripture, its narratival climax and centre, while scripture is

the chosen means of grace by which believers are encountered by the presence of the risen

Christ. For Birch, there can be no sola scriptura separate from a solus Christus; rather, Christ

is the criterion of all scripture, for scripture exists as witness to Christ, the Written Word in

service of the Living Word.41

Conclusion: Towards an Account of Biblical Authority for Twenty-first Century

Baptists

For many Baptists—and Christians more generally, the question of biblical authority has

been seen as a doctrinal and apologetic matter. That is, scripture must be seen and

demonstrated as authoritative if we are to secure the truthfulness and relevance of biblical

doctrines in a world that contests the truth-claims of Christianity. An unfortunate result of

this perspective has been a “battle for the Bible” mentality in which the authority of scripture

is thought to have been defended if a “high view of scripture” has been set forth and adhered

to in doctrinal terms. While I will never disparage either a high view of scripture or a robust

formulation of the doctrine of scripture, I do insist that the authority of scripture is not

realised in our doctrine of its authority. Biblical authority consists not in the assertion of

biblical authority but in our practices wherein we acknowledge, submit to, and embody or

bear its authority. Biblical authority is realised in the lives of Christians who actually read the

Bible, and engage with and deliberate over scripture with others in the Christian community.

Biblical authority is realised when Christians are growing as attentive, faithful and sensitive

readers of scripture. Biblical authority is realised and demonstrated when Christians obey the

scriptures, allowing them to interpret, sanctify and reorient their lives. Biblical authority is

40

Ibid., 209-210. 41

Ian Birch, “Baptists and Biblical Interpretation: Reading the Bible with Christ” in, Dare & Woodman (eds),

The “Plainly Revealed” Word of God?, 153-171.


realised when Christian communities “live into” the biblical narrative allowing it to shape

their congregational life, character, mission and moral vision.42

Kevin Vanhoozer has rightly

suggested that

The church’s aim should be to render a faithful interpretation of Scripture.…the reading

that gives rise to a way of living that most approximates the life of Jesus himself, the

harbinger of the kingdom of God.…The community of believers represents a prophetic

counter-culture that challenges the gods and myths of the day with regard to which world

and life view best fulfils humanity.…Again, this is not only a matter of correct doctrine but

also a matter of faithful biblical performance. The church must be the cultural incarnation

of the story of God in Christ.43

This essay has surveyed three primary models of biblical authority adopted and advocated by

various American Baptists in recent years:

Biblical authority grounded in an inerrant text as objectively given divine revelation

with normative hermeneutics and doctrinal formulations;

Biblical authority grounded in the divine inspiration of the biblical text read by the

Spirit-led individual interpreter;

Biblical authority grounded in the person and work of the Holy Spirit who inspired

the text and continues to use it as God’s means to address the people gathered under

the lordship of Christ.

In addition, we have also noted a proposal from British Baptists for a kind of sacramental

understanding of biblical authority in which scripture, as a means of grace, functions to

mediate the presence and word of the risen and living Christ. It may be that a sacramental

model of scripture will gather up the best of the other models and provide a way forward for

Baptists in the twenty-first century.

Therefore, by way of summation, let me highlight the positive aspects of these models. As

might be anticipated, each of these models claims the support of the Baptist heritage, and has

strengths and weaknesses, and some degree of overlap with the other models. In each case

scripture is honoured as the inspired Word of God, and as central to Baptist faith and practice.

The first model celebrates the sheer givenness of scripture, and helpfully reminds the church

that this is the testimony of God’s gracious and mighty saving interactions with humanity,

grounded in the life and history of the covenant people. As such, the biblical text has a

42

See W.C. Reuschling, Reviving Evangelical Ethics: The Promises and Pitfalls of Classic Models of Morality

(Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2008), 84-87, 150-156. 43

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “The World Well Staged? Theology, Culture and Hermeneutics.” In, God and Culture

D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge (eds) (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1993), 27-28.


provenance to be explored, a historical meaning to be investigated, a propositional content for

reflection and guidance, as well as a demand for response and obedience.

The second model emphasises the privilege and duty of the individual believer to avail

themselves of this precious means of grace, and further protects their right of access to it. The

study of the scriptures is not for the professional exegete, the clergy, the theologian alone; all

the new covenant people of God have been given the gift of the Holy Spirit to be an

indwelling and empowering presence in their lives. Neither should the individual cede their

spiritual privilege to the community; rather, they must exercise their personal duty of biblical

reading and reflection, meditation and application in order that they might not only be

personally edified, but that they might thereby be equipped to minister to and edify the

congregation. For they are called as members of the community, to participate in the life and

ministry of the community. In the community they are taught the doctrines of the scriptures,

encouraged in the promises of scripture, and challenged to obedience. In the community their

own interpretations are trained and formed, challenged and validated. Because they are

personal readers of scripture they are enabled to participate intelligently and spiritually in the

communal times of waiting and hearing, listening and discernment, in the hope that the Spirit

who long ago guided the covenant people of God and inspired the holy text might once more

guide his people by speaking to and through his humble, gathered and expectant people. This,

of course, is the contribution of the third model.

The kind of biblical authority envisaged here is the relational, personal and immediate

authority of the risen Christ, who as the Living Word continues to address his gathered

people by means of the inspired written Word. The Spirit who inspired the Word breathes

again and again in and through the Word, and again and again in and through his people to

illuminate it. We are given this treasure to feed upon, to meditate, to proclaim and to teach, to

sing and rejoice in, to study and to learn. In so doing we are continually oriented and attuned

to the living lord of the church who dwells in the midst of his people. But what we cannot

ever do, says Holmes, “is predict in advance how Christ will choose to speak to us in His

Word when we are gathered in His name.”44

As Vose Seminary celebrates fifty years of faithful and fruitful service, it does well to

consider again the questions put by the editors of Preach the Word in 1969. Our context in

44

Holmes, “Baptists,” 421.


2013 is, of course, quite different. No longer are we simply training ministers and

preachers—or only men! We are concerned for the faithful life and witness of the whole

church. Nonetheless, the imperative to avoid ‘wandering off into myths’ remains, as does the

warning concerning the temptation of falling into a ‘brittle bibiolatry,’ isolated and insulated

from the wider world of both secular and theological discourse. Indeed we must continue our

endeavours to ensure all our students ‘breathe an atmosphere of robust conservative

scholarship during their years of training,’ so long as ‘conservative’ implies an approach to

theology deeply grounded in careful exposition of scripture, informed by the creedal and

confessional heritage of the church, and yet open to fresh insights and interpretations, and

fresh questions and challenges as it engages the contemporary milieu of Christian life and

ministry. May Vose Seminary long endure to serve the Christian community in this way.

Baptists and the Bible in the Twenty-First Century

Documents

Transcript of Baptists and the Bible in the Twenty-First Century