Inspiration is one of those words in the Christian world that instantly polarizes those who use it. The word comes from the Latin, inspirare which is actually two words combined into one, in + spirare literally, "to breath in, or, "act of inhaling". We refer to a movie or a book or a symphony and say to each other, "wow, I am/felt inspired by that". What we mean is that we have taken into ourselves somehow the beautiful qualities of the drama we have witnessed and somehow feel more rich, full, or better than we were before the event.
When the word becomes applied to Scripture though, we want to say that Scripture has this quality of being that which is breathed into by God. We want to affirm of the text, that has been breathed into by God, and so it carries with it a quality that brings us into the spirit of God when we read it.
A good deal of ink has been spilled over the nature of where this inspirare resides. If it resides in the text itself then questions like: "is every word inspired, or just the major phrases?" and, "which version is inspired?" and, "is something wrong with me if I don't feel the Spirit of God when I read the text?" and, "which texts are inspired, the protestant ones or the catholic ones too?"
On the other hand, if the inspirare is thought to reside not in the text itself but the relationship that the text facilitates between the reader and God, then a whole new and different set of questions must be posed. Some questions that fall into this category are: "how is God revealed in each book differently?" and, "why do these texts reveal God in a way that other texts don't?" and, "what role does prayer have in the reading of Scripture?"
There are a couple of things that can be said about both. Regardless of where you place the inspirare (and respected theologians and scholars and pastors from both sides exist and give cogent reasoning for their view) the question of interpretation must be asked -- and answered. In both cases (whether one thinks Scripture is actually the breath of God in verbal form or whether one thinks Scripture causes creation to receive the breath of God) words which interpret the words of Scripture are being spoken by pastors that result in the instruction of their parish.
It is unhelpful, damaging, and divisive to argue that people who place the inspirare of Scripture in a different place than you do are in fact deficient in their faith. The literature from both sides indicates that both sides give equal prominence to the Lordship of Christ. Both sides are seeking to learn from Scripture. Both sides view Scripture as that text which has ultimate authority for the way in which we Christians live our lives. Interestingly enough, it is possible to read the texts used in this debate in both directions.
The classic example of 2 Timothy 3:16 should suffice. One could argue that since Scripture is clearly the object of the verb, inspirato that it is the text itself which is where inspiration lies. One could also argue that this verse essentially limits the quality of inspiration to "all Scripture" in such a way that ensures that other texts don't also carry the authority of revelation. But what one can't do from this text is argue that those who hold a different view are in some sense setting themselves up above Christ or subverting the authority of God, or seeking their own end and not the will of God for their lives.
Great breakdown between these two views of inspiration, 'twas helpful! (For some reason I anticipated this post would be more combative than it actually is.)
ReplyDeleteExcept I'm not sure your last paragraph showed how 2 Tim 3:15-16 is viewed by the inspired-relationship view. Perhaps you could expand on that in a sequel or something?
I resonate with your call for greater appreciation of different views of inspiration. I would add, though, that there are more than two views on inspiration, which your "both sides" language implied. For example, some do not "view Scripture as that text which has ultimate authority for the way in which we Christians live our lives," as you said both sides do.
ReplyDeleteWhile I certainly agree that Christians should not be treated uncharitably for differing views, some views on the Bible (like rejecting it's ultimate authority for Christian living) are beyond the pale for orthodox Christians. Just as unacceptable are heresies like KJV-only. While I think it's important to have clear limits of acceptable views of inspiration, even those with views beyond the pale should be treated with respect. Do you think there are valid limits to views on inspiration?
@leorningcniht: thanks for the comment. I'm glad that the breakdown made some sense. As to the combative peace... the name of the blog is reconciledbodies... I can't really afford to pick fights. lol. As to the request for more clarity on 2 Timothy 3:16, read on. I'll state first though that I'm not an exegete -- my knowledge of Latin and Greek is limited at best. That being said, it does seem that one could interpret the verse to mean that 'all scripture' functions as a limiting factor to that which is 'breathed by God'. In other words, if inspirare applies to the relationship between the reader and the referent (in this case God?) then this verse means that inspirare happens when Scripture is being read more so than, say, Plato.
ReplyDelete@bojopayne: thank you for your comment. Any blog that is as short as mine will necessarily be guilty of simplifying the issue at hand. I find it impossible to articulate what I view to be 'valid limits' to views on inspiration. I also feel it is important to articulate why I can't tell you what my limits are.
I see no way to create meaningful distance between how we categorize the belief of the Other and how we love the other. As soon as we say of the Other, "they believe that which is outside the acceptable pale of orthodoxy" we view the Other as somehow less. Even if we claim to love them as we love ourselves, we lie to ourselves and them. If we learn anything from the concept of kenosis, it is that when we love the other we empty ourselves in such a way as to identify with the other.
I deeply suspect that God won't say of us, (when and if we get to heaven) "did you believe well? did you believe that which was within the pale of orthodoxy?" Rather, if Matthew's witness is any clue, God will say something to the effect of, "did you love well? Did you love the Other? Did you visit the prisoner and feed the famished? Did you love the heretic?"
So while it would be a relatively simple theological task to affirm a limit of inspiration, such an act would create division.
So since we can't categorize thought without categorizing the people who hold that thought, let us err (because err we must) on the side of few limits and even fewer differences. Do we lose the ability to distinguish doctrine? Well, maybe -- but we also lose the ability to distinguish people, we create an intentional blindness -- and that is a good thing. I want to know my neighbor more than I know my neighbor's sin.