This essay was originally a presidential address delivered by Charles H. Talbert to the National Association of Baptist Professors of Religion in 1985 and subsequently published in the journal Perspectives in Religious Studies. It was reprinted in 2018 in the book “A Temple Not Made with Hands:” Essays in Honor of Naymond H. Keathley, edited by Mikeal C. Parsons and Richard Walsh and published by Pickwick Publications of Eugene, Oregon.
The original intent was to serve as a theological basis for a non-inerrantist use of the Bible in churches. Because it was published in places not widely available to lay readers I am here producing a summary (with some quotations, which are in quotation marks) for the benefit of a wider audience. (Biblical inerrancy is a movement that seeks to present only one interpretation of the Bible as legitimate. Leaders of the inerrantist persuasion managed a political takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1980s-1990s. For the principles of the inerrantists, see the pdf documents available at the bottom of this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy).
I am summarizing Talbert’s argument here to offer sincere Christians access to an alternative to the position of “inerrancy,” which was never the position of historic Christianity.
A Summary of “The Bible as Spiritual Friend” by Charles H. Talbert
Whatever is not in quotation marks or is in [brackets] is Sharyn Dowd’s summary.
“What Is the Bible?
That is, what model best conveys Scripture’s character as Canon? [The word “canon” literally meant “measuring stick” in Greek and when used of Scripture it means an authoritative guide to Christian faith and practice.] The model that makes the most sense to me is that of a developing human personality. This model is preferable, for me at least, to the traditional [one of] an eternal, unchanging reality.” There are a lot of different ideas in the Bible about God and about the right way to behave. Conservative Christians who think that the Bible has to say the same thing about everything everywhere within its 66 documents have to go to a lot of trouble to deny or smooth out the differences.
“The model of the developing human personality is also preferable, for me, to the liberal evolutionary [idea] of the older natural sciences which sees a straightforward development from simple to complex, from primitive to higher ways of thinking, so that time is the basic clue to differences within the Canon.” This approach can lead to treating the Old Testament as inferior to the New Testament and is very widespread among Christians.
“The model of a developing human personality is also preferable, for me, to” [the approach of some philosophers who think that the whole point of the Bible is to produce authentic individuals]. This results in eliminating all the parts of the Bible that these interpreters do not like.
“From my perspective, the Bible is best conceived as a living, maturing person who passes through a number of developmental stages, is involved in multiple cultural settings, and faces a variety of issues that call for diverse responses. Like any human being who lives so long, this self moves from childhood with its developing awareness (OT) to adult value decisions that constitute the self’s personal center (Jesus), and then to adult life that attempts to embody the personal center with some degree of faithfulness (NT). In the various crises, amid the multiple cultural settings, it is hopefully the same personal center (Jesus) that shines through.” . . . “From my perspective, the Bible is to be regarded as a living, developing person with whom the believer can be involved as a ‘spiritual friend.’”
“How Does One Approach the Bible as Canon?
That is, if the Bible is viewed as a ‘spiritual friend,’ what is the nature of the relationship between [the Bible] and the believer? Does one approach the Bible as its superior, as an equal, or as one who is subservient with no recourse but to obey blindly?
It is [common] for modern readers of the Bible to consider ourselves the intellectual, moral, and spiritual superiors of the one with whom we are dealing. A number of cultural assumptions may cause us to approach [the Bible’s] differences from us with an air of superiority: (a) the belief that the history of humankind is properly understood as a progress from dark, restricting superstition to reasoned liberating enlightenment; (b) the belief that since moral and spiritual versions of the human condition come to us from the past, they are necessarily infected with superstition, whereas scientific versions of our condition are myth-free; (c) the belief that modern technology, knowledge, and manners are so radically [different] from those [known earlier] that there is no sense referring to traditional standards.” If we take a superior attitude toward the Bible and think that we know better than the many authors who contributed to writing the Bible we can learn nothing from the Bible. This is not the way we should treat an older friend who seems to have very different ideas from our ideas.
It is also common “for certain modern readers to go to the other extreme and relate to the biblical mind with the subservience of a slave [who has no choice] but to obey blindly.” Some people think that if we respect the Bible as an authority we have to obey everything the Bible says or seems to say without asking questions. This view of the authority of the Bible has not been the view of the historic Church through the centuries. Human beings who demand obedience without questions are not people we respect. They are people we avoid if we can and people we resent if we can’t avoid them.
“How can one approach the Bible without either an attitude of superiority . . .or an attitude of [unthinking] obedience . . .” The road between these two extremes is not that of approaching the Bible as an equal. That would miss” [the Bible’s authority as a guide to faith and living]. The right approach “must lead to [real] obedience so that one inwardly agrees with what is said by one’s spiritual friend.” “A correct approach, I propose, is to regard the Bible as a dialogue partner. This dialogue partner is not an equal but rather a recognized specialist in Christian life and faith. “[The Bible] is not, however, the kind of dialogue partner who uses . . authority as a club to beat one into submission. Rather [the Bible] functions as a spiritual director who is eager to talk with you until you are able to see more than you have ever taken in before. In a dialogue with the Bible, one’s approach may take the form of questioning or arguing with [the Bible]. [We might say something like] ‘I cannot buy that. Why do you take that position? That is difficult for a modern person to understand. It is even harder for one in our culture to believe or practice.’ If the dialogue is sustained over a period of time, the approach may bear fruit. The biblical intent may grip us as valid for us. The scriptural categories may undergo [changes] so that they are retranslated into equivalent ones within our culture. The biblical perceptions of Christian life and faith may become catalysts for the shattering of our preconceived notions about who God is, how [God] relates to us, and what [God] desires from us. When this happens, the Bible has become more than ancient Israelite and early Christian literature whose point of view one’s study has described.” Now the Bible “is functioning as a spiritual friend to whose insight we are able inwardly to give assent.” In this way the Bible as “our dialogue partner has enabled us to identify and follow the Spirit’s movement in our lives.”
“Why Listen to the Bible?”
1. Because direct experience with Jesus Christ conforms to the Biblical witness to Christ.
2. Because the Biblical witness helps one formulate one’s beliefs.
3. Because the Biblical witness helps one discern error in belief and practice.
“What Does One Listen For in the Dialogue with the Bible?
That is, what kind of assistance is the Bible qualified to give? For me, the Bible speaks with authority on” what has to do with relationship with God and what has to do with salvation, “not matters of fact. I am aware that this is the dividing line between myself and many of my Christian friends.”
Talbert gives an example of a visit with his fiancee when she was teaching in another state. She wrote a letter saying that she loved him and was eager to see him. In the letter she told a little about the history of the college where she was teaching and she gave driving directions for how to get there. He found that the college was founded in a different year from the one she said and that the driving directions were a little off. However, when he arrived, he found that she was indeed eager to see him and was very much in love with him. Talbert writes: “I had the relational data in the letter verified by my experience with her. The factual data I checked against other sources, finding most things accurate but a couple of items slightly off target. So it is when I listen to the Bible. She is an acknowledged expert in the relational data (how God relates to me, how I am to relate to [God], to others, to myself, and to the world). This data, moreover, is validated by my experience with God. Matters of history and science I check against other sources to determine their accuracy. Inaccuracies in matters of fact do not detract from relational truth which is validated in experience.”
Here’s my interpretation of the significance of this article: The Biblical writers are to be considered truthful witnesses to their experience of God while at the same time being limited because of their immersion in their own culture, time, and place. What they have to say about God and our relationship with God must be taken seriously by Christians who, as they study the Bible together in community, feel free to question things like the slaughter of the Canaanites and the treatment of women and other disadvantaged groups. The Bible contains debates between ideas that cannot be made to agree: Proverbs says that good people prosper and bad people suffer. Job and Ecclesiastes say, “Not so!” There are many other examples of problematic passages in the Bible. A faithful use of the Bible will involve humbly looking for the truths and the wisdom found there and expecting to learn and grow from our study of the Bible. Using the Bible to make lists of rules that must be followed and ideas that must be agreed with is not taking the Bible seriously as a spiritual friend and guide.
The original intent was to serve as a theological basis for a non-inerrantist use of the Bible in churches. Because it was published in places not widely available to lay readers I am here producing a summary (with some quotations, which are in quotation marks) for the benefit of a wider audience. (Biblical inerrancy is a movement that seeks to present only one interpretation of the Bible as legitimate. Leaders of the inerrantist persuasion managed a political takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1980s-1990s. For the principles of the inerrantists, see the pdf documents available at the bottom of this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy).
I am summarizing Talbert’s argument here to offer sincere Christians access to an alternative to the position of “inerrancy,” which was never the position of historic Christianity.
A Summary of “The Bible as Spiritual Friend” by Charles H. Talbert
Whatever is not in quotation marks or is in [brackets] is Sharyn Dowd’s summary.
“What Is the Bible?
That is, what model best conveys Scripture’s character as Canon? [The word “canon” literally meant “measuring stick” in Greek and when used of Scripture it means an authoritative guide to Christian faith and practice.] The model that makes the most sense to me is that of a developing human personality. This model is preferable, for me at least, to the traditional [one of] an eternal, unchanging reality.” There are a lot of different ideas in the Bible about God and about the right way to behave. Conservative Christians who think that the Bible has to say the same thing about everything everywhere within its 66 documents have to go to a lot of trouble to deny or smooth out the differences.
“The model of the developing human personality is also preferable, for me, to the liberal evolutionary [idea] of the older natural sciences which sees a straightforward development from simple to complex, from primitive to higher ways of thinking, so that time is the basic clue to differences within the Canon.” This approach can lead to treating the Old Testament as inferior to the New Testament and is very widespread among Christians.
“The model of a developing human personality is also preferable, for me, to” [the approach of some philosophers who think that the whole point of the Bible is to produce authentic individuals]. This results in eliminating all the parts of the Bible that these interpreters do not like.
“From my perspective, the Bible is best conceived as a living, maturing person who passes through a number of developmental stages, is involved in multiple cultural settings, and faces a variety of issues that call for diverse responses. Like any human being who lives so long, this self moves from childhood with its developing awareness (OT) to adult value decisions that constitute the self’s personal center (Jesus), and then to adult life that attempts to embody the personal center with some degree of faithfulness (NT). In the various crises, amid the multiple cultural settings, it is hopefully the same personal center (Jesus) that shines through.” . . . “From my perspective, the Bible is to be regarded as a living, developing person with whom the believer can be involved as a ‘spiritual friend.’”
“How Does One Approach the Bible as Canon?
That is, if the Bible is viewed as a ‘spiritual friend,’ what is the nature of the relationship between [the Bible] and the believer? Does one approach the Bible as its superior, as an equal, or as one who is subservient with no recourse but to obey blindly?
It is [common] for modern readers of the Bible to consider ourselves the intellectual, moral, and spiritual superiors of the one with whom we are dealing. A number of cultural assumptions may cause us to approach [the Bible’s] differences from us with an air of superiority: (a) the belief that the history of humankind is properly understood as a progress from dark, restricting superstition to reasoned liberating enlightenment; (b) the belief that since moral and spiritual versions of the human condition come to us from the past, they are necessarily infected with superstition, whereas scientific versions of our condition are myth-free; (c) the belief that modern technology, knowledge, and manners are so radically [different] from those [known earlier] that there is no sense referring to traditional standards.” If we take a superior attitude toward the Bible and think that we know better than the many authors who contributed to writing the Bible we can learn nothing from the Bible. This is not the way we should treat an older friend who seems to have very different ideas from our ideas.
It is also common “for certain modern readers to go to the other extreme and relate to the biblical mind with the subservience of a slave [who has no choice] but to obey blindly.” Some people think that if we respect the Bible as an authority we have to obey everything the Bible says or seems to say without asking questions. This view of the authority of the Bible has not been the view of the historic Church through the centuries. Human beings who demand obedience without questions are not people we respect. They are people we avoid if we can and people we resent if we can’t avoid them.
“How can one approach the Bible without either an attitude of superiority . . .or an attitude of [unthinking] obedience . . .” The road between these two extremes is not that of approaching the Bible as an equal. That would miss” [the Bible’s authority as a guide to faith and living]. The right approach “must lead to [real] obedience so that one inwardly agrees with what is said by one’s spiritual friend.” “A correct approach, I propose, is to regard the Bible as a dialogue partner. This dialogue partner is not an equal but rather a recognized specialist in Christian life and faith. “[The Bible] is not, however, the kind of dialogue partner who uses . . authority as a club to beat one into submission. Rather [the Bible] functions as a spiritual director who is eager to talk with you until you are able to see more than you have ever taken in before. In a dialogue with the Bible, one’s approach may take the form of questioning or arguing with [the Bible]. [We might say something like] ‘I cannot buy that. Why do you take that position? That is difficult for a modern person to understand. It is even harder for one in our culture to believe or practice.’ If the dialogue is sustained over a period of time, the approach may bear fruit. The biblical intent may grip us as valid for us. The scriptural categories may undergo [changes] so that they are retranslated into equivalent ones within our culture. The biblical perceptions of Christian life and faith may become catalysts for the shattering of our preconceived notions about who God is, how [God] relates to us, and what [God] desires from us. When this happens, the Bible has become more than ancient Israelite and early Christian literature whose point of view one’s study has described.” Now the Bible “is functioning as a spiritual friend to whose insight we are able inwardly to give assent.” In this way the Bible as “our dialogue partner has enabled us to identify and follow the Spirit’s movement in our lives.”
“Why Listen to the Bible?”
1. Because direct experience with Jesus Christ conforms to the Biblical witness to Christ.
2. Because the Biblical witness helps one formulate one’s beliefs.
3. Because the Biblical witness helps one discern error in belief and practice.
“What Does One Listen For in the Dialogue with the Bible?
That is, what kind of assistance is the Bible qualified to give? For me, the Bible speaks with authority on” what has to do with relationship with God and what has to do with salvation, “not matters of fact. I am aware that this is the dividing line between myself and many of my Christian friends.”
Talbert gives an example of a visit with his fiancee when she was teaching in another state. She wrote a letter saying that she loved him and was eager to see him. In the letter she told a little about the history of the college where she was teaching and she gave driving directions for how to get there. He found that the college was founded in a different year from the one she said and that the driving directions were a little off. However, when he arrived, he found that she was indeed eager to see him and was very much in love with him. Talbert writes: “I had the relational data in the letter verified by my experience with her. The factual data I checked against other sources, finding most things accurate but a couple of items slightly off target. So it is when I listen to the Bible. She is an acknowledged expert in the relational data (how God relates to me, how I am to relate to [God], to others, to myself, and to the world). This data, moreover, is validated by my experience with God. Matters of history and science I check against other sources to determine their accuracy. Inaccuracies in matters of fact do not detract from relational truth which is validated in experience.”
Here’s my interpretation of the significance of this article: The Biblical writers are to be considered truthful witnesses to their experience of God while at the same time being limited because of their immersion in their own culture, time, and place. What they have to say about God and our relationship with God must be taken seriously by Christians who, as they study the Bible together in community, feel free to question things like the slaughter of the Canaanites and the treatment of women and other disadvantaged groups. The Bible contains debates between ideas that cannot be made to agree: Proverbs says that good people prosper and bad people suffer. Job and Ecclesiastes say, “Not so!” There are many other examples of problematic passages in the Bible. A faithful use of the Bible will involve humbly looking for the truths and the wisdom found there and expecting to learn and grow from our study of the Bible. Using the Bible to make lists of rules that must be followed and ideas that must be agreed with is not taking the Bible seriously as a spiritual friend and guide.