OK, if you follow the link, be prepared for some heavy reading. I stumbled across an article by N.T. Wright titled, “How Can the Bible Be Authoritative?” (I’ve stumbled across it before, but now that I’m blogging, I can share it here with all of you!) He’s trying to figure out what we mean when we talk about the authority of the Bible. It’s not as simple as saying, “Well, if you have a question, look it up in the Bible and find the answer,” because the Bible isn’t a list of questions and answers. It’s also not a list of rules to follow or commands to obey or statements to believe (though it contains all these things, here and there). For the most part, the Bible is a story. So what do we do with that? How can a book, especially a book that tells a story, have authority in our lives?
One model he uses, which I find interesting, is that of a play whose fifth act has been lost. I’ll go ahead and quote a couple of paragraphs here (which will give you a taste of what you’ll be in for if you decide to read the whole thing):
Suppose there exists a Shakespeare play whose fifth act had been lost. The first four acts provide, let us suppose, such a wealth of characterization, such a crescendo of excitement within the plot, that it is generally agreed that the play ought to be staged. Nevertheless, it is felt inappropriate actually to write a fifth act once and for all: it would freeze the play into one form, and commit Shakespeare as it were to being prospectively responsible for work not in fact his own. Better, it might be felt, to give the key parts to highly trained, sensitive and experienced Shakespearian actors, who would immerse themselves in the first four acts, and in the language and culture of Shakespeare and his time, and who would then be told to work out a fifth act for themselves.
Consider the result. The first four acts, existing as they did, would be the undoubted ‘authority’ for the task in hand. That is, anyone could properly object to the new improvisation on the grounds that this or that character was now behaving inconsistently, or that this or that sub-plot or theme, adumbrated earlier, had not reached its proper resolution. This ‘authority’ of the first four acts would not consist in an implicit command that the actors should repeat the earlier parts of the play over and over again. It would consist in the fact of an as yet unfinished drama, which contained its own impetus, its own forward movement, which demanded to be concluded in the proper manner but which required of the actors a responsible entering in to the story as it stood, in order first to understand how the threads could appropriately be drawn together, and then to put that understanding into effect by speaking and acting with both innovation and consistency.
In this model, Scripture is the first four acts, and we are now given the responsibility of living out the fifth one.
Of course, like all models, it has its shortcomings, but I find it to be a helpful way to think about the role that Scripture plays in our lives. If we are to be these actors, living out the fifth act, then we must immerse ourselves in the first four acts and get to know the story intimately. Otherwise, we won’t be faithful to the play, nor to the author who has entrusted it to us.
This is a big responsibility. Fortunately for us, God is not just sitting on the sidelines waiting to judge us. This isn’t American Idol or Dancing with the Stars. Instead, he has entered into the story himself. He is one of the actors alongside us, and as we follow his lead (now I have the dancing imagery in my head), we find that he is helping us each step of the way.
So… what do you think? I’d love to hear your thoughts, whether you wade into the full article or not.