Recently I was rereading sections of Beyond the Battle for the Bible by J.I. Packer.  I read it a long time ago, but I've been working on personal project on Scripture and wanted a refresher on the text.  Packer's project is a respectable one.  He desires to move beyond battles and/or debates over touchy words like "inerrancy" and "infallibility" to a new place where the Bible can be read in healthy community.  

In one section of the book Packer suggests that the Bible need to be read from a place of submission to it.  The reader needs to submit themselves to the Word of God and allow the Bible to speak for itself.  This is something that I agree with, philosophically. I think the problem is not with the concept of submission, but with what you are fundamentally "submitting" to.  In other words, what kind or understanding of Scripture are you submitting to?  Submission to a wrong understanding of Scripture is no better than not submitting to Scripture - both are wrong and misguided.  I think this is where the fundamental evangelical problem is relative to Scripture.  Good evangelicals submit themselves to Scripture, but they have a wrong view of Scripture.  They submit to something that is fundamentally misunderstood.  

This ties into my reading of Barth in "The Strange New World of the Bible."  My understanding of the book is in a previous blog post so I won't go into it here.  Suffice it to say that the Barth does not see the Bible as responding to human questions relative to moral behavior.  The Bible is God revealing Himself to us.  Employing the Bible as a moral guidebook is at the least misguided.  Therefore we are faced with the fact that "submission" to Scripture is not submitting oneself to mere moral teaching or examples (yes, we can still glean more behavior from Scripture, see previous blog post).  Instead, we are submitting ourselves to God and His communication of Himself through Scripture.  Scripture doesn't address our questions (and therefore provide answers); Scripture teaches us who God is.  We submit to that.
​

I've just finished reading Barth's essay "The Strange New World of the Bible" in Word of God and Word of Man for the third time.  Each time I read the essay I understand a little more about what Barth was getting at.  At least for my own benefit I'll enumerate what I have gleaned from it thus far.

1. What is in the Bible is not the word of man, but the Word of God.  What does this mean?  Primarily it means that it is God speaking to man and not the other way around.  We learn who God is and hear Him address us.  It is not our address to God or our attempt to address God (tower of Babel?) that matters.
2. God's word does not necessarily address the questions that are posed to it by man.  God has His own priorities and things that He wants to communicate in Scripture.  When man approaches Scripture with questions to be answered it allows (forces) man to read the Bible incorrectly.  It becomes a tool for man to "use" rather than a tool for God to communicate to man.  Man shouldn't direct his understanding of God by the assuming that the Bible answers his questions.  As we see in #1, God addresses man not vice versa.
3. When the Bible is read in this way, the content of Scripture changes.  For example, Old Testament stories are not necessarily viewed as moral examples or "ways to live."  Man often understands the good and bad "behavior" of men like David in tension.  They see David as merely a moral example - David did good things, so we should model our lives after David.  What of the negative behavior.  Often this is ignored or merely addressed by saying "let's not do this thing that David did" (adultery and the killing of Uriah, among other things).  Barth's presentation of the Bible allows the reader to not struggle with this dichotomy.  The Bible is not there to answer the question, "how am I able to be a moral person."  The Bible speaks to us in each situation to reveal God and His being to us.  It is not that we cannot glean moral behavior from the Biblical figures.  We can. Nevertheless, these moral examples are not and end to themselves.  They are meant to reveal God to us.

​A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
Proverbs 15:1 NIV


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

We can be confident that it happens to everyone.  What?  You know, losing your temper.  Generally, with losing our temper comes harsh words.  Honestly, I can’t think of a singular time that using harsh words accomplished what I wanted to accomplish.  Really, in the short term someone might do what you want, but in the long term you damaged a relationship that may or may not be repairable.  Ironically, this happens with the people who are closest to us and that we value the most. Our harsh words are like a ticking time bomb, just waiting to go off.

Luckily, this isn’t the end of the story; there is another option - giving a gentle answer to someone.  By giving a gentle answer you do two things.  First, you show the individual that you value you them.  You value you them enough to treat them with respect, despite some differences.  Second, you build consensus; to say it another way, you build a team; you welcome someone vs. rejecting someone.

If you want to be a builder and not a destroyer consider your words today; especially your words you use to those who are closest to you!