Interpreting the Story
Saying that we should learn how to read the "Story" already implies things. Some don't see the Bible as "Story". Some see it as a "guide to living". Some see it as a "devotional guide to make us more spiritual". Some read it as a "repository of promises". Some read it as an "authoritative guide to God's will," which expresses itself in commands and "principles". It would be hard to deny that elements of truth adhere to these views; anyway, who'd want to deny it? But if the Bible is more the development of the Story of God and his relationship to the human family, if it is more an historical telling of what God has done, is doing and will do in and through the human family then we should read it that way.
Saying that we should learn how to read the "Story" already implies things. Some don't see the Bible as "Story". Some see it as a "guide to living". Some see it as a "devotional guide to make us more spiritual". Some read it as a "repository of promises". Some read it as an "authoritative guide to God's will," which expresses itself in commands and "principles". It would be hard to deny that elements of truth adhere to these views; anyway, who'd want to deny it? But if the Bible is more the development of the Story of God and his relationship to the human family, if it is more an historical telling of what God has done, is doing and will do in and through the human family then we should read it that way.
There's no doubt that the initiative in the entire
biblical witness is with God but there's no doubt either than much of
the Bible is a narrative telling how God's people responded to his
self-disclosure and creative engagement in the life of humanity.
Maybe we should read the Bible asking how we should live
as God's people. I'm sure everybody would agree to that—and should. But
it implies a prior question and the answer to that question determines
how we should live as God's people. The prior question (in one form or
another) has to be: What kind of God is the God whose people we are?
That question has implications of profound importance.
For example, it implies that there is one God whose people we are and
that that God is unchanging in his character and purposes. If it's true
that God is one and that his character and purposes are unchanging then
it would follow that any change in his dealings with us would mean that
he changes in order to remain the same. That is, he might introduce
covenants and later remove them, place people in places of authority and
later remove them, act this way in a particular situation and act
differently later in a very similar situation. I mean to say that
whatever the changes in his behaviour they cannot mean that his
character is changing with the circumstances. To maintain his character
and his overarching purpose he may act in different ways depending on
the circumstances.
Because they care for them, parents might have a lights
out at 8 p.m. policy for their young children. For the very same reason
those parents will change the "lights out rule" when their children are
older. The rules change so that the parents can remain the same toward
the children. Click here to see a lengthy development of this point.
God's commandments profile his character and nurture his
purposes and I would think that we're not to focus on the commandments
as though they were ends in themselves. Commandments are not given for
us to ignore and much less to break—they're to be obeyed; but it would
be possible to obey commandments (at the societal, home and religious
levels) without a relationship of devotion existing between those that
obey and the one(s) issuing the commands.
A child may obey a father out of prudence or fear and
not because he/she cares for or even respects the parent. The same could
be true of societal and religious laws. There's little point in
thinking that simply obeying the commands is the ideal—it certainly
isn't; and if God is our Heavenly Father then it certainly wouldn't be
what he desires. He wouldn't think that we honour him by deliberately
defying his commands. He would think we dishonour him if we were to do
that but he would surely hold that heartless obedience is legalism or a
disguise for something worse. The Heavenly Father seeks the response
that comes from his child. This is demonstrated in Jesus Christ whose
obedience took the form of a devoted Son. His obedience did not exist
simply in the specific actions of his life; he came into the world as a
Son, a child of the Holy Father, and offered the obedience of a son. The
actions and speech and attitudes were in keeping with his relationship;
his righteousness was relational fidelity and not simply the correct
legal response to commandments.
What God seeks will show itself in commandment-keeping
but it will not be confined to that. If our commandment-keeping is to be
like Christ's it will rise out of the child/parent relationship. Let me
say it again, it's no accident that Jesus came as a child of the Father
rather than some legal representative or special envoy or some such
thing, as distinct from a Son. He came as a Son (a child of the Father) to profile what was to be offered to the Holy Father.
So when we ask how we are to live as the people of God I
would suppose we should not be talking simply about obedience but the
obedience that accords with a child/parent relationship. The obedience
of a citizen to society's laws is not of the same nature as the
obedience of a devoted child to a devoted parent.
If the above has merit and we are to obey as devoted children who call upon a Holy Father then our way of reading scripture should be undertaken in that light.