The Moon of Our Darkness

ALL EPISCOPALIANS desire to listen faithfully to the Bible and live in the light of the truth of God it reveals. But what are we to make of the great diversity of views among us about the nature of the Bible and how we are to make use of it? I believe the view that has generally typified Anglican thought, namely that the Bible is a divine and human book that contains a coherent and consistent revelation, is true though it is presently challenged by two extreme positions held by some of our fellow Christians. On the one hand are the "fundamentalists," who diminish the human element, and on the other are the "liberals," who diminish the divine element.

The label "fundamentalist"

It is very popular a the moment to label people "fundamentalist" who refer to the Bible as an authoritative guide. At times this seems merely a convenient way to demean a person and dismiss an unwanted point of view, rather than an accurate identification and critique of a position.

Often the charge is made because a "proof text" has been used in an argument. Some Fundamentalists believe every word is inspired and therefore appeal to any passage as coming straight from God without necessarily paying attention to its form, context, or the intention of the author. They neglect the fact that God has spoken through particular human beings in particular times and places and that our understanding and use of a passage must honor God's word as He chose to give it to us. In their honoring of Scripture as a divine word the human element is eclipsed. It is quite right to be concerned about proof-texting since almost anything could be proved from Scripture if context and intention are neglected. However, since we view Scripture as authoritative we must appeal to Scripture. How should our use of Scripture differ from proof-texting?

Appeal to a passage of Scripture is appropriate if our use is consistent with what it means in its context and if it is actually germane to the point we are making. If our use is grounded in solid interpretation nothing is amiss. We may, of course, disagree over the interpretation, in which case we must reason with one another to see who may have the more solid interpretation.

Thus, Scripture must be cited as authoritative though a certain form of proof-texting often associated with Fundamentalism is wrong. What about a further characteristic of Fundamentalism of treating the Bible as a textbook of science and history? Here also the problem arises from failing to appreciate the human character of Scripture. It is sometimes thought that since God is perfect and the Bible is His Word, the Bible must be perfect in every way. Accordingly, there can be no errors of any kind. The scientific and historical errors and inconsistencies in Scripture then become enormous problems for faith. People lose their faith over the differences between the four gospels. Indeed, logically one could be devastated by the grammatical errors in the Bible.

Sometimes these problems are dealt with by appealing to the inerrancy of the original autographs: there were no errors in the writings as they came from the pens of the authors. This implies that God is rather clumsy, since He went to all the work to get an inerrant autograph and then let it drop. If He cared about these matters in the way some of His children care about them, could He not preserve an inerrant text as well as generate one?

Look to the Bible itself

The Bible is indeed inspired, trustworthy, and authoritative, but to know what this means we must look at the Bible itself, not our presuppositions about what its inspiration must imply. It then becomes clear that the Bible reveals God's dealings in history, but this history is not always recorded with precision according to our standards. For example, when Jesus sent out the Twelve were they to take staves with them (Mark 6:8) or not (Matthew 10:10; Luke 9:3)?

If God were so concerned with such precision He could have arranged the Incarnation to take place after the invention of camcorders. Indeed, when God came among us He could have written the definitive book, but the only record we have of Jesus writing is in sand (John 8:6, 8), and even that may have been more doodling. We cannot get God in a box. Our desire for precision owes more to our culture than to Scripture itself. Our faith in the inspiration, trustworthiness, and authority of the Bible means that we believe the Bible is accurate and precise enough for the purposes God has for it.

At this point it would appear that our ways are not God's ways. Instead of golden tablets come down from Heaven we have only the revelation as it comes to us through our fellow human beings. This fact is illustrated in Psalm 77:16-18, where the Exodus is described in very vivid imagery, emphasizing that God was active in the event. The waters saw Him and "were afraid," His arrows "flashed on every side." Then the psalm concludes, "Your way was through the sea, your path, through the mighty waters; yet your footprints were unseen. You led your people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron" (Psalm 77:19-20). God was marching ahead through the water but not even His footprints could be seen. All that was seen were the very human hands of Moses and Aaron. The eyes of faith can see God at work, but God works through humans. Indeed, even when God became incarnate among us it was possible to miss Him, or even understand Him to be demonic!

While Jesus is sinless and perfect, the writers of Scripture were not, and this has implications for how we are to approach the Bible. "The human qualities of the raw materials show through," C. S. Lewis wrote in his Reflections on the Psalms.

By having false expectations of what God's word must be like and then having those expectations dashed it is possible to turn from the Bible and, indeed, fall away from the faith altogether.

The other extreme

Recognition of the humanity of the Scriptures can lead to the other extreme position: a failure to see in the Scriptures that the word of God has its own coherent, authoritative message to give to us. One of the main reasons for failing to find a coherent word from God is the diversity contained in the Bible. If one recognizes the humanity of Scripture and continues to go to it to find God's word, what is one to make of the diversity found in Scripture? It has become commonplace to say that "the canon canonizes diversity." Was the Hebrew desire for a king a godly desire (1 Samuel 9:1-10:16) or not (1 Samuel 8:8; 10:17-24; 12)? Should widows be encouraged to remarry (1 Timothy 5:3-16) or discouraged (1 Corinthians 7:39-40)? Was Abraham justified by faith (Galatians 3:6-14) or by works (James 2:18-26)?

The great diversity of Scripture suggests to some that it has no coherent voice and thus no authoritative message that we must heed. Rather, they believe, we have in Scripture the written expressions of our ancestors' struggles to articulate and reflect on their experiences with God. We must attend to our own experiences and then see what in Scripture seems to correspond to them or express our own experience. We must all develop our own "working canon." In this way the Bible becomes a treasure chest of ancient jewelry we can use to decorate our attempts to express our own encounters with God. It becomes a bag of scraps from which we make our own patchwork quilt, rather than a completed quilt of God's own design.

We are then free to have our own canon of those passages that are helpful to us. We can be Pauline Christians or Johannine Christians, depending on which resonates with where we already are. If the diversity of Scripture is so radical that opposing views are expressed on important issues, we have to choose within the Bible what is true for us. It becomes nonsense to call any view "the biblical view" since no such unity exists. Such segmentation of the canon also produces a radical diversity among Christians, depending on which bits a person or group chooses to listen to. And in fact, we do have such radical diversity of readings.

One person may refer to Matthew 5:17-20 to assert the continuing validity of the law and the warning that "whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven." But another person may reply, "Oh, that is just Matthew's Jewish Christian legalism," thereby dismissing the text as having nothing authoritative to say to us today, except for those who want to be Matthean Christians. If we want to be Pauline Christians, some say, we will have a very different view of the law and no place for Matthew's material in our expression of the faith.

If we approach Scripture in this way we are in exactly the same place as the Fundamentalist. Both of these extreme positions come to Scripture with an experience and understanding already in place that determines what Scripture will say to them. They both make Scripture a puppet that expresses what they already believe. The voice which speaks comes from culture rather than God.

The test of Scripture

We all do have our own "working canon," those sections that speak most clearly to us. But we can still work at living in the light of all of Scripture, as the 20th Article of Religion says, not so expounding "one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another." We all come to the Bible with our blinders and presuppositions, but it is possible to be aware of these and test them by the Scriptures themselves and by fellow believers with different sets of blinders.

Such testing by Scripture assumes that there is some coherent message in the Bible, that amid the great diversity there is some sort of unity as well. I believe that there is indeed such a unity, but it is not simple and clear-cut. The diverse views fit together in a larger, complex whole. There is indeed a patchwork already there, what the literary critic Northrop Frye has called the "Great Code."(2)

This larger unity was wonderfully expressed by the early nineteenth century Anglican Charles Simeon and illustrated in one of the great controversies of his day. In the preface to his sermon notes, the Horae Homileticae, he says that the author is "no friend to systematizers in Theology." He goes on, however, to say that

"Of this he is sure," Simeon continues,

How does the diversity of Scripture contribute to its unity? Once one has appreciated the humanity of Scripture in the imprecision and diversity of detail, these features do not diminish its authority, though no alleged contradiction should be accepted without examining the evidence.(4) But what is one to make of more substantive differences? At least five types of diversity may be identified.

Five types of diversity

First, some passages that appear to be opposed to one another turn out on closer inspection to be compatible because they are not really addressing the same issue. The difference between Paul and James mentioned above is an important example. One indication of this is that they are using the word "faith" in different ways, James of intellectual belief and Paul of that trust that unites us to God. Their teachings are compatible, but the fact that they both refer to Abraham as an example of their different points itself suggests not contradiction but the richness of the Old Testament text.(5)

Second, some of the differences in the Bible reflect different aspects of a situation. Thus, the retention mentioned above of both monarchy and anti-monarchy texts in 1 Samuel conveys something of the sinfulness of the event and also its divine purpose. This is instructive since it suggests that events can be quite ambiguous and still be the activity of God within history. It also illustrates the important principle that where there is clear diversity the truth may lie in a combination of the views. The lively arguments amongst an earlier generation of scholars over whether Jesus taught that the Kingdom of God is present or future are now almost quaint.

Third, at times diversity of perspective is due to progressive revelation. Thus, for example, in 2 Kings 17:24-41 the origin of the Samaritans is given as the action of the king of Assyria in settling people from five Gentile nations in Israel. The passage stresses their worship of both God and false gods, thus breaking the first commandment and posing a danger for lax Israelites. Accordingly, the Jews hated the Samaritans (cf. Sirach 50:25-26), right down to the time of Jesus. But when the Son of God comes He does not express this hatred. Jesus reveals God's love for the Samaritans and His acceptance of their faith (John 4:39-42). This does not mean that the earlier position was wrong; the concern about Samaritan idolatry was appropriate. But that separation of the Israelites from the Samaritans did not represent God's final word concerning the Samaritans themselves. Much in Scripture is transcended as salvation history progresses, with that which comes later fulfilling and thus replacing what came earlier.

Fourth, some texts differ from one another due to changes or differences in circumstances. The different instructions on the remarriage of widows, mentioned earlier, is explained by some on the grounds that 1 Timothy is not by Paul but is a later, "Early Catholic" relaxation of the earlier tension of living with an expectation of the return of the Lord at any moment, that had led St. Paul to urge widows not to marry in 1 Corinthians. Thus, the change in circumstances accounts for this variety. Even if one takes 1 Timothy as coming from the apostle, as I do, such a change is not explained by the different challenges facing the two churches addressed. Timothy faces a situation in which a false teaching seems to be affecting the women in particular (1 Timothy 2:8-15; 5:316), and is characterized in part by a false asceticism which forbids marriage (1 Timothy 4:3). So the preference (not command) expressed in 1 Corinthians 7:40 is here replaced by the opposite preference (again, not command) to serve these different needs.

The most significant diversity

Yet a fifth type of diversity is the most significant. There are genuine antinomies in Scripture that cannot be resolved. The controversy cited by Simeon is one example. Both divine sovereignty and human responsibility are taught in Scripture, at times by the same author.

Indeed, in St. John's Gospel they frequently lie side by side. Thus, according to John 1:12 the power to become children of God depends on our receiving Jesus, but the next verse says this birth is not from human will but from God's. If we had only verse 12 it would seem that everything depend on us; if we had only verse 13 it would seem that everything depends on God. St. John, our theological master, simply states them side by side and as the Gospel proceeds he turns up the volume on both speakers. They are both equally true, yet he makes no effort to explain how they can both be true.

Similarly St. John's teaching on the Logos: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). He says that the Word was "with" God, implying that the Word is distinct from God, but then immediately affirms that the Word "was" God. The identity of Jesus with God and yet His distinctness from the Father is a theme found throughout the Fourth Gospel, pointing us to one of the deepest mysteries of our Faith.

What emerges from the Bible when viewed in terms of this unity is not a systematic set of propositions nor a comprehensive set of rules, though propositions and rules certainly play a part. Rather, something far more organic emerges: a coherent picture of God, ourselves, and God's intentions within history can be seen, even if many of the details are fuzzy or missing altogether. "It is the God who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Corinthians 4:6). This revelation of God in Jesus then enables us to interpret the Scriptures and recognize God's revelation in nature, in addition to what should be evident to all (cf. Romans 1:19-20). In all this revelation what is revealed is God, not just facts or rules.

Jesus' cryptic teaching

The Bible's unity in diversity, and the difficulties it causes us, is quite in keeping with the way Jesus taught during His earthly ministry. According to Mark 4:12, He taught in parables so people would not understand! But to "those who were around him along with the twelve" was given "the secret of the Kingdom of God" (Mark 4: 1 0-1 1). That is, His teaching was designed to attract people to Himself, it was an invitation to discipleship, not a set of teachings one could merely write down, memorize, and try to live by. It is said that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. True, but you can give him salt. The parables are Jesus' "salty" teaching to make people thirsty and come to Him for refreshment.

Similarly in John's Gospel, the vast majority of Jesus' teaching is in the form of cryptic sayings. He even admits at the end of His teaching ministry, "I have said these things to you in figures of speech" (16:25). All His teaching has been a profound revelation of truth, but it was incomprehensible until the great revelatory acts of the Cross and Resurrection and the coming of the Spirit to interpret His deeds and words. What Jesus wants is to reveal the Father and bring us to union with Him. For this reason, His teachings cannot be neatly packaged, but they are sufficient to know that "the Father himself love you" (John 16:27) and to know how we are then to live in the light of this fact of all facts.

As Jesus in His actions and words always points to God and His Kingdom, so also the Scriptures. They are a pointing finger. If you point to something in front of a dog he will merely look at your finger. We must read Scripture so that we see not Scripture by itself but that to which it points, that is, the One to whom it points.

The moon of our darkness

Scripture is a means to an end. This truth is beautifully captured in an image of George MacDonald, when he says we should hold the Bible dear as the moon of our darkness as we travel toward the east, whence her light comes, not dear as the sun whose rays she reflects. We are in the dark and in need of light.

God has reflected His light in the Bible, which gives us what we need to go on as we travel toward the light Himself, the sun over the eastern horizon. Walking on a moonlit night we are quite capable to finding our way even if much remains indistinct or hidden in shadows. Without the moon's light, we cannot go very far or very safely.

The Bible is the moon of our darkness. Though it is "the oracles of God" as Paul says (Romans 3:2), it is not the sun itself, as those who see primarily its divinity might think. But, on the other hand, it is actual light that breaks in from beyond our human realm, as those who see primarily its humanity might forget. Much is uncertain of interpretation, yet if we allow the Bible itself to define its character, purpose, and scope we find a surprising coherence. This coherence will include a great deal of diversity, but not unlimited diversity. Indeed, the diversity itself is part of the pattern.

As Christ's Body, we are a part of the mysterious way in which God walks amongst us, with invisible footprints. The way He has given us Scripture requires us to depend on one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We heed not just those who received the revelations and those who passed them on, but our fellow Christians throughout history who help us hear the word aright.

If we come to Scripture primarily to know God, those who have known Him best in the past, the saints, will have much to offer us. The saints are the experienced lovers, and with Paul the aim of our reading should be "love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith." (1 Timothy 1:5).6

The impact of diversity

The diversity of the Bible has always been recognized. Nevertheless, the Bible was thought coherent by the ancient Church, the Anglican reformers, and most Anglicans down to the present day. Belief in such coherence informed our Prayer Book and our debates with one another within the family over the centuries.

True, in recent centuries the Bible has not had authority for some in the Church, though it was usually still spoken of in hallowed phrases. But it remains to be seen what the impact will be of the view in our own day that the Bible contains radical diversity to the point of incoherence. At times in debates within the Church it is as if one team has come with a football and the other with hockey sticks. We are not playing the same game, because our worldviews differ on such a deep level.

This article has tried to suggest that there is a time-honored alternative between making an idol of the Bible and an idol of the culture, between unity that allows no diversity and diversity that allows no unity. When interpreted in its historical, literary, and canonical context the Bible presents a coherent revelation that challenges all our idolatries.

---

ENDNOTES

(1) C. S. Lewis, Reflections on the Psalms (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1958), pp. 111-112.

(2) Northrop Frye, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1982).

(3) Quoted in Handley Moule, Charles Simeon (London: InterVarsity Fellowship, 1965, original, 1892), p. xiii.

(4) For example, sound principles of interpretation allow one to find much more harmony among the Gospels than is often allowed. Cf. Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove: IVP, 1987). Not all of his interpretations are equally convincing but he does provide thoughtful alternatives to the conclusions from a more skeptical approach, and calls into serious question at least some aspects of the skeptical approach itself.

(5) For fuller defense of this view see Peter Davids, Commentary on James, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), pgs. 126-132.

(6) It is possible that trends in modern thought will enable us to value more highly our ancestors' insights into Scripture, even their use of allegory. Cf. Andrew Louth, Discerning the Mystery: An Essay on the Nature of Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983).

---

The Rev. Dr. Rodney Whitacre is Professor of Biblical Studies at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in Ambridge, PA, specializing in the New Testament. His commentary on the Gospel of John, in the IVP New Testament Commentary series, will be published in September, 1999. "The Moon of Our Darkness" is reprinted from the "Joys of Orthodoxy" issue of Trinity's magazine Mission & Ministry.

This article was revised and posted on 24 February 1999. Copyright Rodney Whitacre, 1999.