O God, Thy Sea Is So Great, And My Boat Is So Small

Scripture is an extraordinarily valuable library of documents. But we would be foolish to make it the be-all and end-all. Granting that the scriptural authors were inspired, it's beyond dispute that today we know far, far more than they did about God's creation, and also about how human beings tick. So we can't discount that "inspiration" and "revelation" might be an on-going process. And while human beings likely haven't changed all that much in 2,000 years, there's no question that human society has undergone enormous changes since then; people of today interact in ways that would have been unimaginable in New Testament times.

We might do better to think of Scripture as a set of ancient maritime charts and sailing directions, drawn up by skilled navigators of old. These charts might very well provide useful and even invaluable guidance to modern sailors. For most voyages, they might be entirely sufficient as navigational tools. But they might also be dangerous if relied on blindly.

Consider an analogy: Suppose that a modern ship captain wants to bring his vessel into the port of Syracuse in Sicily. He will be one of a long line of seafarers to visit Syracuse; the Apostle Paul put in there, in his first port call after surviving shipwreck on the way to Rome (see Acts 28:12).

In entering any port, no competent skipper would ever rely totally on a chart, let alone on an ancient chart from 2,000 years ago. (I speak here from the experience, in my younger days, of three years of sea duty in the Navy.) True, an ancient chart might serve adequately most of the time. But cartographers now know far more about charting harbors and sea lanes than they did back when Paul was traveling. And let's not forget, the modern harbor at Syracuse is not exactly the same as it was back then, either.

Our modern captain, approaching Syracuse harbor, might well elect to use a Pauline-era chart. With its aid, he might be able to make port with complete success. But a competent mariner would also use any other available charts, depth soundings, radar readings, and other navigational aids -- to say nothing of the thoughtful advice of his navigation team.

Our modern captain would presumably give due weight to all these things, as he judged appropriate. As captain, however, ultimately he must make the necessary command decisions -- and for those decisions, he would be accountable to the ship's owner.

By the same token, we cannot safely presume that the Bible will always provide complete, conclusive guidance in life. Certainly the odds are that we can safely look to the Bible for guidance. But we can't dismiss the possibility that the biblical authors might have gotten something wrong. Or, maybe things are just different now. We would be well-advised to use not only Scripture, but whatever other navigational aids and guidance we have available, including advice from our own "navigation teams." And ultimately, like our ship captain, each of us must make our own life decisions -- for which we will likewise be accountable to the Owner.

(Adapted from something I wrote as part of a discussion at TitusOneNine.)

Comments

[Mark Diebel]

You are certainly treading on thin ice! Or maybe it only seems thin. I think you've got it. Maggie Dawn says something similar in her essay published in "Anglicanism: the Answer to Modernity". She has a blog called: maggie dawn.

She pointed me to STC's "Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit," which raised the same point in 1840. In the 1853 edition, which is the common and fairly cheap reprint, you can find a response to some of STC's critics written by his daughter, Sara Coleridge. It gets at the tone and the feeling of that era.

Aside: You might also be interested to know that Reginald Fuller in his essay in Anglicanism and the Bible (Anglican Study Series) cites the fact that over 11,000 clergy (and some huge number of laity over 100,000) opposed vehemently the acceptance of a Judicial Committee of the Essays and Reviews of 1860 -- where an essayist was dealing with questions of approach to scripture and historical criticism.

I think this, the discussion of inspiration, truth and the working of the spirit in us, is the true direction of the controversy. Note STC's conviction that the sort of Christianity which he opposes and is represented by the asserters of the Tenet of Biblical Innerrancy is actually Pretence.

The discussion does look difficult however in view of a recent article by Ephraim Radner, which is written in his usual intelligent prose, and that refers to articles by Robert Sander's, who is referred to in posts after yours on TitusOnenine. Sander's goes after the Presiding Bishop for voicing ideas that sound like yours and STC's. The reasserters do not lack for intelligent pundits.

Thanks for your labors. Keep it up!

[D. C.]

Thanks for the pointers, Mark. I read the Sanders piece; it was fascinating.