How Tim Jones reads the Bible

a website related to uk.religion.christian

Home » Best Bits » How Tim Jones reads the Bible
How Tim Jones reads the Bible

Posted by Tim Jones on 2000-09-12
I've been putting off replying to this because I think it's going to be
difficult to find a common language in which we can communicate, and there's
a lot of potential for very painful misinterpretation.   Please recognise
that this is very personal and difficult to express.

>For clarification then you belive that the bible is fallible and that
>particularly the OT is full of fallible scriptures. You clearly believe
that
>the NT is less fallible but still fallible at least in places.

This is extremely difficult to answer because your framework is so different
from mine.   The alternative to "infallible" isn't "unreliable".   When I
say the Bible is fallible I mean that I can't extract a verse or a doctrine
and say "this is absolute truth because it is in the Bible, and it can't be
questioned".   I do not jump from there to "Therefore it has nothing to say
to me and God cannot speak through it".   I try to take the Bible as it is
and to hear what God is saying through it.   This means trying to discern
the voice of God, as distinct from the voice of the human writer.   "The
sheep know the voice of the shepherd", so I have to get to know the shepherd
personally;  the Spirit leads us into truth, so I have to listen to the
Spirit.   Humans don't hear very well, so I have to match what I hear
against the character of Christ and have to accept that I might make
mistakes.

My approach to the Bible isn't "Is this part right or wrong?" but "What is
God saying to me in this?" (while recognising that what God is saying may
sometimes be different from what the writer was saying).   That makes your
next question a bit difficult, because it assumes I've got the Bible tidily
sorted into a pile of verses I accept and a pile I reject.

Another difficulty is that I don't think the primary message of the Bible is
a set of intellectual statements (information) which are right or wrong.
Its primary message can't really be put into words -- it's not information,
but an encounter between me, the writers and God.   God is in the encounter.
"This is correct" or "this is a mistake" isn't the actual point.   The point
is to meet God.

>A serious question  - if you know that the bible contains errors how do you
>know that the errors are not the bits that you agree with and that the rest
>with which you disagree is the right stuff?

We can't have certain knowledge of anything.   We have faith, not certainty.
Biblical inerrancy is IMO an attempt at having certainty -- ditto papal
infallibility, and ditto cults which have an infallible leader everyone is
supposed to follow unquestioningly.   (NB I'm not comparing Catholicism or
fundamentalism with cults -- just mentioning cults as an example of the
desire for certainty.)   There are also people who have some sort of
religious experience, interpret it in a particular way, and believe that the
experience has given them certain truth -- they are making the same mistake.

So, by faith, I accept something along these lines:  Christ is God's fullest
revelation to us.   So I have to get to know Christ by every means possible.
This means include reading about how he lived (in the gospels), and about
the early Christians' experience of the risen Christ among them (the rest of
the NT).   Reading, though, is second hand.   Knowing *about* Christ is not
the same as *knowing* Christ.   (Savoir vs. connaitre in French, or wissen
vs. kennen in German:  unfortunately English doesn't make the distinction.)
To *know* Christ I have to commit myself to follow him, and live by his law
of love;  I have to pray and reflect and learn to discern the voice of the
shepherd, and I have the Spirit within me (same for you and every Christian)
to make that possible.   I have to allow Christ to nurture my conscience so
that I can tell the difference between what expresses his love and what
denies it.

My experience is that we come closest to God by trying to obey him.

>It appears that your experiences have brought you to a point where your
>feelings are the primary source of discerning whether something is right or
>not.

"Feelings" is rather a vague and feeble word.   "Relationship" is the
important one.   One difference I see between "liberals" and "fundies" is
our interpretation of salvation.   We are created to live in fellowship with
God.   Our experience, however, is of separation from God.   For me
salvation means being reconciled with God *now* -- it's not about "trying to
avoid going to hell and go to heaven instead".   Heaven is eternal
reconciliation with God and hell, if it exists, is eternal separation from
God.   But the separation or reconciliation is also now.

We're reconciled with God in order to have a relationship with God.   That's
the whole point.   By "relationship" I mean relating to a real, present
person who is a part of my life and whom I love.   Things are right if they
strengthen that relationship, and wrong if they harm it.   To be saved is to
be in relationship with God.

Yes this is subjective -- but ultimately it's all I've got which isn't
second hand.   Except it isn't subjective, because other people have the
same experience of who God is.   It's possible to make mistakes.   The
answer to that isn't to stop listening to the experience of God, but to be
humble and willing to learn.

Science progresses by making observations.   These are, in fact, experience:
the experience of doing a particular experiment and seeing a particular
instrument give a particular reading.   Christian faith progresses in a
similar way:  we observe the effect of God on our life.   If something makes
me more loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good, gentle,
self-controlled -- i.e. produces the fruit of the Spirit --then it is of
God.   If it makes me more self-centred and vicious, miserable, contentious
and ill at ease, impatient, unkind, bad, aggressive, undisciplined, then it
is not of God.   I have to learn from experience which is which.

It's not about deciding "which bits of the Bible are right or wrong".   It's
about nurturing a relationship with God in Christ, and making Christ
central.   If Christ is central, other things have to move over to make
room.   Some of those "other things" are particular ideas of particular
writers in the Bible, and the living Christ must always take precedence.

The Bible doesn't give us a perfect picture of Christ, but it tells us
enough for us to recognise him when we meet him, so we can give ourselves to
him and follow where he leads.

I wouldn't say my feelings are my primary way of discerning.   The primary
way is to think hard about what love for God and neighbour means, and what
the love of God is like, and then to apply these to particular situations in
my life or particular ideas I read.   If I'm not at peace though, I need to
keep on searching for the answer (with lots of prayer).

If something "feels wrong" than I try to identify why;  if the answer is
"this conflicts with the love of God as seen in Christ and as it should be
expressed in my life" the feeling is valid;  if the answer is simply "I
don't like this very much" it may not be and I have to try to find out where
the feeling comes from (thereby learning something about myself).

>Please accept these as honest questions and responses to your statements.

Please accept this as an honest attempt to answer.