My wife and I will be attending the annual meeting of The Christian Medical and Dental Society (CMDS) of Canada. St. Andrews-by-the-Sea in New Brunswick, this week. An important item for discussion at this meeting is the Society's statement of faith including their belief in the authority of Scripture.

This discussion has been brought about by a recent challenge presented to the CMDS Executive Board by one of its members. A year ago an article was published in the October 2004 issue of Focus, the society's official magazine by a member that suggested truth can also be found in other religions.

This article was disputed by another member Zoltan Horvath. He sent a broadcast fax to the CMDS membership to voice his concern. The fax called for the resignation from CMDS of the writer of the article and the editor of the magazine. This call was based on the Horvath's charge that these two people had abandoned the statement of faith of the CMDS especially its commitment to Scripture. (See the CMDS On-line Membership Application Form)

So a debate has ensued, some of which can be viewed at the CMDS Forum . This debate will culminate this week at the annual meeting.

I have three reason for commenting on this debate at the Faith at Work Blog.

First, I would like members of CMDS to be aware of what is at stake in this discussion on biblical authority. Christian medical and dental professionals have a peculiar  responsibility to care for people. Decisions about patient care based on a flawed understanding of biblical authority can end badly for patients as well as for physicians. So it is of utmost importance to base these decisions on sound understanding of how we interpret and apply the Bible in professional practice.

Second, how one lives one's faith at work in professional practice is  shaped by how one interprets the Bible. On one hand, there are Christians who hold a low view of Scripture. They practice according to the prevailing cultural norms with little attention to discovering a Scriptural approach. On the other hand, there are those who reject modern medical techniques such as blood transfusion because of injunctions against consuming blood found in the Hebrew Bible. Bible believing Christians in professional practice usually locate themselves between these two extremes. The question I want to answer is how does one's understanding of biblical authority work in everyday decision making in a clinical practice?

A third reason is that this story follows a familiar pattern. I have been through a recent spat with a writer who accused me of all sorts of heretical tendencies. You can view the discussion here. So I'd like to work out how biblical authority ought to apply rather than let heresy hunters dictate that to me.

To answer these questions I will need to define what is meant by the "authority of Scripture".

I will further examine how Zoltan Horvath applies that authority in a different context, the important issue of poverty. It is timely to present this examination as the subject of the upcoming conference is God's concern for the poor. (see IN AS MUCH - - - A Christian Conference for Doctors and Dentists)

Finally, I will consider how as Christian professionals could best understand biblical authority in our professional practices. This is an approach that attempts to be faithful to the nature and character of God as we understand Him to be from what we know of Him in the Bible.

Let us being with what is meant by "Biblical Authority." The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy states "Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God's written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority." (For more reading this article on Biblical inerrancy .)

If Christians do not submit to biblical authority, to what authority do they submit? Every point of view is a view from a point. If Christians abandon the Bible as their reference point for faith, with what other reference point do they begin?

Biblical authority means that we adopt the Bible and the story it tells about Jesus Christ as the starting point and controlling story for our faith. This is what CMDS believes and requires its members to believe.

How does Biblical Authority operate in the life of believers, specifically in the life and practice of Christian medical and dental professionals?

There are several approaches to biblical authority. In this article I will discuss two approaches. The first approach that is popular in the evangelical church is a biblical literalist approach. The second approach will be N T Wright's article on the subject. N. T. Wright is a historian, theologian and bishop in the Anglican church.

Zoltan Horvath takes a literalist approach to biblical authority. The following quote is from his post at the CMDS web site. It is an example of how he thinks biblical authority works.

Furthermore 2 Timothy 3:16-17 teaches that Scripture IS TO BE USED for correction, teaching and reproof. However, this is emptied of any real meaning or practical use in the passage quoted above in favour of a postmodern tradition that embraces diversity and autonomy of opinions. When one writes "I do not presume to claim that my interpretations of the Truth are any better or any more valid than those of any other" there can therefore be no meaningful appeal to Scripture. The Bible becomes like our Queen Mother. We all respect her and give homage to her but of course no one makes appeals to her or believes that she has any real authority. When we look to the story of Scripture we do not see this imitated anywhere. Jesus and the apostles and even Stephen quoted Scripture and none of their enemies thought to challenge them with the accusation that they were simply imposing personal opinions or interpretations. It is once again the spirit of the postmodern age which sows doubt and makes the Word of God of no effect. It is the spirit of the serpent when he asked Eve "hath God said?"

 

According to Horvath, biblical authority operates by "quoting Scripture" so that it can be used to correct, teach and reprove. Presumably, this is done by using a concordance to find relevant scriptures that apply,  referencing them and contrasting them with what one thinks is unbiblical so as to correct that position.   

An example of how Horvath uses the Bible can be found at U-TURN.net: A Biblical Approach to Poverty.[1]. In this article on poverty Horvath references 50 verses from various parts of the Bible to come to the following conclusions.

-         Poverty is a consequence of the Fall and will always exist.

-         Poverty is a result of the sin of the poor themselves.

-         Poverty is part of the suffering God uses to show man the consequence of sin.

-         Scripture does not teach that government should help the poor.

-         What is a biblical response to poverty? The poor need mercy, which should come through the church.

So how does this practically work out?

For Horvath, it's simple. The Bible is an ordered set of propositional truths that generate a comprehensive set of rules to be literally obeyed. One reads the plain sense of Scripture from the passages identified and draws a literal conclusion which is then applied to life. Thus when the Bible states in Proverbs 6:10-11 that poverty is a result of persons' laziness than the solution to poverty is for the poor to repent of laziness and work hard. It is not for them to get government assistance!

Of course there are huge problems to this approach of interpreting the Bible not the least of which are what Christian medical professionals  do with the overall approach to sickness. Substitute the word sickness for poverty into Horvath's article and you may arrive at the conclusion that sickness is a result of a person's sin and must be dealt with through repentance and faith rather than having the government intervene by paying doctors to care for the sick.

N T Wright's Wisdom on Biblical Authority.

A much better approach to the application of biblical authority is proposed by N T Wright in How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?

Wright challenges evangelicals to "grow up" in their reading of the Bible. When we treat the Bible as a neat tidy set of propositional truths that are easily applied to daily life we are turning the Bible into something that it is not. The Bible is an ancient text that uses narrative story to communicate the truth about God and the world. So when we turn it into something else we are actually locating authority outside of the Bible and inside a way of reading the Bible or a way of looking at the world which is not infallible, inerrant or inspired.

Wright goes on to conclude that the authority of Scripture derives from God's authority which is exercised for Christ through the Holy Spirit. The authority that ought to govern our lives is not a rule book authority we derive from interpretation of scripture, but God's authority operating in our lives through the Holy Spirit using the Bible to guide our actions.  

But what is God doing with his authority?  We discover, as we look at the Bible itself, that God’s model of authority is not like that of the managing director over the business, not like that of the governing body over the college, not like that of the police or the law courts who have authority over society.  There is a more subtle thing going on.  God is not simply organizing the world in a certain way such as we would recognize from any of those human models.  He is organizing it—if that’s the right word at all—through Jesus and in the power of the Spirit.  And the notion of God’s authority, which we have to understand before we understand what we mean by the authority of scripture, is based on the fact that this God is the loving, wise, creator, redeemer God.  And his authority is his sovereign exercise of those powers; his love and wise creations and redemption.  What is he doing?  He is not simply organizing the world.  He is, as we see and know in Christ and by the Spirit, judging and remaking his world.  What he does authoritatively he does with this intent.  God is not a celestial information service to whom you can apply for answers on difficult questions.  Nor is he a heavenly ticket agency to whom you can go for moral or doctrinal permits or passports to salvation.  He does not stand outside the human process and merely comment on it or merely issue you with certain tickets that you might need.  Those views would imply either a deist’s God or a legalist’s God, not the God who is revealed in Jesus Christ and the Spirit.  And it must be said that a great many views of biblical authority imply one or other of those sub-Christian alternatives.

 

But, once we say that God’s authority is like that, we find that there is a challenge issued to the world’s view of authority and to the church’s view of authority.  Authority is not the power to control people, and crush them, and keep them in little boxes.  The church often tries to do that—to tidy people up.  Nor is the Bible as the vehicle of God’s authority meant to be information for the legalist.  We have to apply some central reformation insights to the concept of authority itself.  It seems to me that the Reformation, once more, did not go quite far enough in this respect, and was always in danger of picking up the mediaeval view of authority and simply continuing it with, as was often said, a paper pope instead of a human one.  Rather, God’s authority vested in scripture is designed, as all God’s authority is designed, to liberate human beings, to judge and condemn evil and sin in the world in order to set people free to be fully human.  That’s what God is in the business of doing.  That is what his authority is there for. And when we use a shorthand phrase like ‘authority of scripture’ that is what we ought to be meaning.  It is an authority with this shape and character, this purpose and goal.

 

In summary, for Wright biblical authority is primarily about what God is doing to "set people free to be fully human." That authority is very different from the world's thinking of what authority looks like. The way the Gospel of Mark tells it, real authority is seen in Jesus enthroned on a cross between two thieves with the words "King of the Jews" written over his head. This is in contrast with Pilate's secular authority that runs roughshod over justice. Or the Jews religious authority that puts a man to death because they did not like what he had to say. That is, the shape of biblical authority is found in the crucifixion, the laying down of one's life for one's friends.

Thus the task of Christian believer at work is to discover how God wants to use them to "set people free to be fully human" through compassionate acts of love and sacrifice. This is what it means to submit to Biblical authority at work in professional practice.

In contrast, if one thinks the task of Christian believers is primarily about keeping inside a Christian ghetto, establishing a set of rules for that ghetto and not straying across those boundaries than one is enslaved by those boundaries and attempts to enslave others within those boundaries.

In Christian medical practice there are various labels for these ghettos. One of them is using the word "Christian" as an adjective to describe one's practice. The danger is that this label creates a boundary,  a wall behind which it is easy to hide from the world. It identifies who is "in" the ghetto and who is "outside" of the ghetto. It can give us a sense of superiority from which we can judge those who are not living inside our ghetto. It is from these places that we can fire broadsides (or broadcast faxes) against "outsiders" who do not subscribe to our version of what "Christian" medical practice looks like.

Thus to adhere to biblical authority is about dying to one's own interests and living for others. It is about laying down our lives so that others might live. It is NOT about obeying a set of rules or keeping the world out.

At my wife's medical clinic, Medi-Kel, we do not label ourselves as a "Christian" clinic although most of the physicians who work there are Christians. We do not post signs that identify us as anything other than a medical clinic.  Instead, we embody what we believe by providing extraordinary care for our patients. We demonstrate we are different by laying down our lives for one another and for the patients we serve.

To help us to do this we have a Mission Statement that includes a governing commitment to God, which states, "To faithfully serve His purposes to care for and love people,  keeping our eyes on Him and remembering that this is His clinic and He is at work here."

This means that we are committed to discerning through prayer God at work in the midst of practice and following him into the decisions we need to make.

It is easy to develop a set of patient care rules based upon our view of the Bible and simply draw a line that we will not cross. Then we inform our patients what we will and will not do based upon these rules and let them decide whether or not they will continue to attend the clinic.

It is much harder, but more Christ like, to follow God into patient care decisions trusting that He will lead us by his Spirit to make the right decisions for each particular instance.

So for example when a young girl turns up at the clinic pregnant, she is much more willing to listen to her family physician about keeping her baby. This is because that physician has cared for her previously through providing wise counsel about sexual health.  The biblical literalist approach would have stopped her at the door with a boundary such as rules about birth control. The result from that approach could be to send her on her way to Planned Parenthood and her baby on the way to an abortion.

In summary, J.I. Packer once said, "Bad theology hurts people." I support the CMDS in its affirmation of the authority of Scripture. However, I note that there is a good way and a bad way of applying biblical authority. I think if we take Horvath's route of biblical literalism we will hurt people with arbitrarily defined rules that are an offence to the intent of the gospel and defeat God's desire to set people free to be fully human.  The riskier route is to follow God into our work, being willing to take the path of the cross and it is there we will discover how God can work through us to really set people free.


[1] U-Turn is a publication of the  Christ Covenant Church (Langley Reformed Evangelical Church) of which Dr. Horvath is a Church officer. The church is a member of Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches [CREC]