|
525 - Models for Scripture |
Models for Scripture
By John Goldingay
Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1994. 420 pp. $19.99.
John Goldingay herein tries to defuse some of the conflict over scriptural authority by sketching four "models" of how Scripture functions in the Christian community. His aim is to show that the entrenched positions in the authority debate all diminish the richness and vitality of the Bible's relation to church and to lay an alternate, less polemically charged foundation for approaching issues of authority. He draws on the
|
526 - Models for Scripture |
strengths that the warring parties hold up, but he tries to demonstrate that these strengths are complementary rather than contradictory.
Goldingay defines his four models as "Scripture as Witnessing Tradition...... Scripture as Authoritative Canon," "Scripture as Inspired Word," and "Scripture as Experienced Revelation." As "witness," Scripture provides a narrative that situates readers in the story of their forebears in faith and that appraises various ways of responding to that story. As "authoritative canon," Scripture sets bounds for Christian behavior and belief; the very processes that produced the canons of the New and Old Testaments ("Second and First Testaments," in the terminology that Goldingay adopts to mitigate Christian triumphalism) produced the identities of the peoples who recognized those canons and who now acknowledge the authority of these texts rather than others. As "inspired word," Scripture conveys to us a word with divine effectuality, perhaps not inerrant but assuredly reliable. As "experienced revelation," Scripture illuminates our lives by drawing explicit theological conclusions from the inchoate succession of mundane events. Goldingay associates these four models with four genres of scriptural material: narrative (witness), legal (canon), prophetic (inspired word), and wisdom (experienced revelation). He does not segregate these associations of genre and model, however; the sections devoted to the models explore the many ways in which each model implies particular relations to the other models.
The effort to explore a middle ground on biblical authority is welcome, but it faces certain intrinsic obstacles. Probably most important, Goldingay points out numerous ways in which biblical-authority issues are more complicated than the contending debaters typically allow. For instance, one critical element in the conflict over biblical authority is the extent to which the debate is not so much about biblical authority per se but more about "what kind of people we ought to be." Mainstream academic biblical critics know that they can use "fundamentalist" as a term of abuse, while conservative evangelicals can discredit opponents by suggesting that they have capitulated to liberalism. No matter how sensible and irenic Goldingay's proposal may be (and it is both), however, his program will risk running aground to the extent it calls large social groups to redefine fundamental tenets of their identity. His analysis may attenuate the persuasive force of this self-definition by anathema, but it seems equally likely that the rivals will simply overlook an argument that would complicate their efforts to win adherents.
That would be a shame, for Goldingay's effort deserves critical engagement rather than neglect. He is to be commended, for instance, for an extended and careful discussion of the consequences of letting go the notion of "inerrancy," for his frequent recourse to Scripture's characterizations of itself, and for his serious discussions with prominent representatives of a variety of positions on authority. Still, many will resist Goldingay's supposition that readers should operate with these four coordinated "models of Scripture" rather than privileging one particular model. Moreover, the neatness of his fourfold selection of models over-
|
528 - Models for Scripture |
simplifies the ways Scripture functions for the church; such oversimplification may be necessary as a heuristic tactic, but it may also introduce new problems. Goldingay adheres to the assumption that texts simply "have" meanings, so that the genre distinctions -on which he leans are transparently obvious; yet readers have, for centuries, disagreed about the distinction between "law" and "narrative" in the Torah and about which books count as "prophetic" (hence "inspired" according to Goldingay's schema). Goldingay has put together a sensible contribution to a vexatious dispute; whether as a model for supporters or a foil for antagonists, Goldingay's proposal enriches the discussion of biblical authority.
A. K. M. Adam
Princeton Theological Seminary
Princeton, NJ