Timothy Beal is Florence Harkness Professor of Religion at Case Western Reserve University and the author of twelve books and numerous articles on the cultural history of the Bible, religion and popular culture, and relations between critical theory and academic religious studies. He recently shared a portion of an essay from his latest book, The Rise and Fall of the Bible: The Unexpected History of an Accidental Book (2011), in an article for The Chronicle of Higher Education. Below are three quotes that speak to his understanding of the role of the Bible:
The Bible is anything but univocal about anything. It is a cacophony of voices and perspectives, often in conflict with one another. In many ways, those dedicated to removing all potential biblical contradictions, to making the Bible entirely consistent with itself, are no different from irreligious debunkers of the Bible, Christianity, and religion in general. Many from both camps seem to believe that simply demonstrating that the Bible is full of inconsistencies and contradictions is enough to discredit any religious tradition that embraces it as Scripture. Bible debunkers and Bible defenders are kindred spirits. They agree that the Bible is on trial. They agree on the terms of the debate, and what’s at stake, namely the Bible’s credibility as God’s infallible book. They agree that Christianity stands or falls, triumphs or fails, depending on whether the Bible is found to be inconsistent, to contradict itself. The question for both sides is whether it fails to answer questions, from the most trivial to the ultimate, consistently and reliably.
The Bible canonizes contradiction. It holds together a tense diversity of perspectives and voices, difference and argument—even, and especially, when it comes to the profoundest questions of faith, questions that inevitably outlive all their answers. The Bible interprets itself, argues with itself, and perpetually frustrates any desire to reduce it to univocality.
Attachment to the cultural icon of the Bible is . . . debilitating. It’s a false image, an idol. If you see it, kill it. The Bible is dead; long live the Bible. Not as the book of answers but as a library of questions, not as a wellspring of truth but as a pool of imagination, a place that hosts our explorations, rich in ambiguity, contradiction, and argument. A place that, in its failure to give clear answers and its refusal to be contained by any synopsis or conclusion, points beyond itself to mystery, which is at the heart of the life of faith. We might even go so far as to say that the Bible kills itself. It deconstructs itself. Reading it undermines the iconic idea of it as a univocal, divinely authored book and our desire to attach to it as such. Scriptures have a tendency to exceed the boundaries of orthodoxy and resist closure. The Bible keeps reopening theological cans of worms. It resists its own impoverishment by univocality . . .
So What?
I am currently associated with a theologically progressive denomination that is best known for its God is still speaking initiative, which began in 2002. In the United Church of Christ, most people share Beal’s perspective. However, since the denomination does not share any creeds (apart from the agreement we hold no creeds in common), emphasizes inclusivity, and grants local congregations considerable autonomy, individual parishes provide powerful examples of a wide variety of theological perspectives. For me, the Bible makes sense when it is read, studied and experienced not as the Word of God, but as the words of faithful people relaying their understandings of a Still Speaking God.
- What is your initial response to the three Beal quotes? Would this approach the Bible be welcomed in your local congregation? Why or why not?
- How would you characterize your perspective on what the Bible is and how it should be read? What sources have influenced your understanding?
- As you have aged, have you found that your perspective has moved right (becoming theologically more conservative) or left (becoming theologically more progressive)?