In my Missional Theology class at BTS, we’ve been discussing the nature and task of “theology.” One aspect of the discussion is the role of scripture in theology. Some folks think of theology as a house, with scripture as its foundation. This is an interesting analogy, particularly when we consider the creativity of the architect and the need to remodel the house at times when the landscape or neighborhood changes.
But, I wonder if the “foundationalist” metaphor for scripture is a good one. If scripture always has to be received and interpreted, and if we require the Holy Spirit to “illuminate” scripture for scripture to function as God intends in the Church, does the analogy of scripture to the unchanging foundation of a house stretch things too far? I wonder if the Apostle Paul’s frequent use of the analogy of a “body” in relation to the Church provides some different resources for thinking about the relationship of scripture to theology?
I wonder if scripture is more like the physical structures of the brain. Those structures regulate how we are capable of perceiving and thinking about the world. They are adapted to give us useful data — though not perfectly complete God’s-eye data — of the world we live in so that we can function effectively as human beings. Perhaps scripture is more like this than like the foundation of a building. Scripture regulates how an organism, the body of Christ, perceives and thinks about God and about how to live in the world God created.
One reply on “Analogies for Scripture: Buildings or Neurobiology?”
Hmm. Very interesting analogy. I’ll have to think about that. But at first blush I like it. So for example, in the perception of light, our eyes function as great lenses for what really exists, even though they are far from perfect (our brains compensate for the eye’s flaws and our perception is pretty close to reality).
I’m wondering how you would compare your analogy to Enn’s incarnational analogy? Or maybe they can both function at getting us closer to understanding scripture’s role?
Another quick thought: As we know, brains can be damaged & thus the perception of reality can sometimes be skewed even further. What about the possibility that the canon or the text has been “damaged” in some way? I guess this is where biblical studies & historical criticism can be helpful. My take though is that God, in looking after his church, has & will continue to provide protection (kind of like a helmet in hockey … ok, so I just had to get that in being a Canadian and all).