The establishment of the biblical canon didn’t provide perfect clarity, nor did it eliminate disagreements. However, it did provide a common resource for Christians to consult, and it is the basis of the tradition of theological reflection that the Church has cultivated over the centuries. In sum, the Bible is where we go to gain insight into what it means to believe in Jesus – i.e., to trust him, following his example.

Over time, social, political, and intellectual changes have raised the profile of other forms of knowledge and sources of wisdom. Many voices have raised the question of whether or not the ancient collection of texts in the Bible is still relevant, much less authoritative. Rudolf Bultmann famously stated that “We cannot use electric lights and radios and, in the event of illness, avail ourselves of modern medical and clinical means and at the same time believe in the spirit and wonder world of the New Testament.”[1]

For Bultmann, and for many people attempting to critically engage the implications of Christian faith, the pressing weight of scientific, psychological, cultural, and other contributions to human knowledge have made embrace of a biblical view of the world (as Christians have described it historically) difficult. Some have felt the need to renegotiate the substance of faith, and some have rejected Christian faith altogether.

Here’s the problem with that kind of thinking. It’s the problem of authority. Christians, however diverse they have been about the implications of Christian faith or biblical interpretation (and I want to acknowledge this out of honesty), have generally agreed that the Scriptures that guide us to Christ nevertheless have the moral authority to bind our consciences and guide our lives because they are the inspired Word of God.

In simple terms, the Bible tells us not only what is, but also what ought to be. There is an imperative to be discerned from what the Bible says, and Christians have historically interpreted it on that basis.

Human inquiry of different kinds, on the other hand, can yield insights into how the world is, but they lack the authority to dictate how it ought to be. Christians and skeptics alike have long observed this crucial differentiation. David Hume, no fan of historical Christian doctrine, noted that one cannot “derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is,’ at least without a supporting ‘ought’ premise.” For example, one might argue  against punching someone in the face based on the fact that one would physically harm the person. Therefore, you shouldn’t.[2]

The problem is that there is, of necessity, a corresponding “ought” statement implied in this logical train – namely, that it is wrong to physically harm someone. Without this third statement, no moral counsel can accrue from the other two premises.

In Rudolf Bultmann’s thinking, modern scientific and medical technologies provide a way of understanding the world that not only conflicts with the way the Scriptures describe the world, they invalidate it. For him, the Bible needed to be understood (and theological commitments revised) in light of scientific developments. It could not simply be allowed to state what ought to be in light of what Bultmann believed is in light of modernity.

It is easy to identify this type of development as something that has emerged outside the MB community, and far from the realm of faith. But the truth is that Christians, and MBs in particular, are as susceptible to various kinds of ideologies as anyone. These ideologies are taken to be authoritative enough that they affect how Christians interpret Scripture, and they undercut biblical authority.

There are two kinds of issues at play. The first is information that some Christians believe to have theological implications that conflict with what Christians have understood Scripture to proclaim. For example, Darwin’s book The Origin of Species, with its explanation of the process of biological evolution, was taken by some to be refutation of the doctrine of God’s creation of the world as described in Genesis 1. These two descriptions – Darwin’s and the Genesis 1 account – need not be seen as contradictory because they are two qualitatively different descriptions. Space considerations prevent a full explanation, but the point stands.

The other kind of issue is that of authorities outside Scripture (and often outside the Christian tradition) being inserted into Christian theological discourse. For example, in recent years, a number of theological concerns have been criticized as being unfair in relation to human rights, from gender issues to vaccine mandates to church baptismal practice.

The problem is not that human rights are unimportant to Christians. The problem is that human rights need to be read and understood in relation to the prior standards governing human interaction derived from the Church’s historic interpretation of Scripture. And it is not that I am suggesting that Christians return to a dusty old way of interacting. Quite the contrary.

Christian interpretation of Scripture is a dynamic endeavour that pays heed to the past, but is not bound by it. Having said that, modern human rights arise from a completely different context, based on a modern secular set of presuppositions about social and political relationships. Modern human rights are neither appropriate nor necessary motivators for loving concern toward others in Christian theological reflection.

It may seem inconceivable in an age when change is the norm to insist that human nature and human needs remain the same. But I think that we need to be attentive to the tension between the pervasiveness of change and the reality that people are the same. At very least, it may help Christians retain a posture of appropriate humility in our reflection on Scripture and its application to our lives.

---

[1] Bultmann, Rudolf, ed. Schubert M. Ogden, New Testament and Mythology and Other Basic Writings (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 4.

[2] Jenkins, S. (2017, July 24). David Hume and deriving an “ought” from an “is.” The Ought. https://provisionalsignificancecom.wordpress.com/2017/07/10/david-hume-and-deriving-an-ought-from-an-is/