The meeting went much better than I expected. Eight people attended. We tried a new format: Instead of reading a 20 minute paper and then having a discussion, I described a problem for 3-5 minutes, gave a discussion question, and opened the floor for discussion. Then another question, and so forth. Notes are below. They do not represent the discussion very well, because it went in lots of directions, but we stayed mostly on topic, with appropriate forays into adjacent territory.
I highly recommend the article by Wright, by the way, as a starting point for discussion and thought. The questions and the title of Wright's paper, by the way, could appear to some readers as saying that the Bible can't have authority. He does quite the opposite. He does call into question some of the 20th century conservative and liberal ideas of biblical authority, and then goes to the Bible to see what it has to say about authority. It's a very chewy, Bible-centered, profitable read.
The Bible and Authority:
Some Questions for Discussion
This material is largely drawn from “How Can the Bible Be Authoritative,” an essay by N. T. Wright, a New Testament scholar and the bishop of Durham in the north of England. You can find the essay online at http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm.
1. What does “authority” mean? What do we mean when we say that the Bible is authoritative?
2. (a) How can any text function as authoritative? (b) How can any ancient text function as authoritative? (c) How can an ancient narrative text be authoritative?
3. Do we turn the Bible into something else, and give that the real authority?
4. Mt. 28:18. If Jesus has “all authority” how does the Bible fit into that picture?
5. What is God using his authority to do? How does God’s authority work?
6. The Bible is not mostly creeds or rules for living, although it contains those, and more can be inferred from it. The Bible consists mostly of narratives. How can stories have authority?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wright's essay reminds me of some of the metaphysics of Pythagoras or the ruminations of Aquinas: though subtle, ultimately about nothing. It is a wonder that humans have such strong opinions about the invisible.
ReplyDeleteAndy,
ReplyDeleteHaven't read Pythagoras (although I know a cool geometric proof of the Pyth'n theorem), nor Aquinas.
The "ultimately about nothing" depends on presuppositions. If one "knows" that there is no God, then, of course, Wright's paper is an essay in futility - as is the entire Sidewalk Theology Society. If one "knows" that the phenomenal world is a vale of illusions, then natural science is similarly futile. It all depends on the presuppositions. Those, in turn, have interesting sources and bear examination and exposition. That's what we're doing to some extent at STS.
JY