Christological authority, biblical interpretation and the vocation of the Church
By Rod Benson
Does the New Testament enjoin Christians principally to defend the authority of the Bible or to bear witness to the good news it announces? Distinguishing the authority of Christ, the normative function of Scripture and the fallible authority of ecclesial interpretation, I suggest that apologetic reasoning is a legitimate but subordinate dimension of the gospel imperative of Christian witness. Moreover, the Uniting Church in Australia’s Basis of Union illustrates how biblical authority, scholarly inquiry and ecclesial accountability may be held together without collapsing the witness of Scripture into polemical interpretations of it.
Introduction
The question whether Christians ought to defend the Bible or bear witness to its teaching is easily framed as a false alternative. Christian proclamation requires intelligible reasons, and serious engagement with objections can be an act of fidelity rather than an expression of insecurity. Nevertheless, the distinction identifies a genuine theological problem: the authority Christians ascribe to Scripture is sometimes conflated with the certainty of their own interpretations or the prestige of ecclesial institutions.
A defensible account of Christian responsibility must therefore order three related claims: the authority of Jesus Christ as the object and agent of divine revelation; the authority of Scripture as the canonical, prophetic and apostolic witness through which the Church encounters that revelation; and the limited, revisable authority of the Church’s interpretations. On this account, the defence of biblical authority is neither prohibited nor self-justifying. It is warranted insofar as it serves truthful testimony to Christ, responsible reading of Scripture and the formation of a community whose practices accord with the gospel.
1. Christological authority and the purpose of Scripture
The New Testament’s most decisive assertions about authority focus upon Jesus Christ rather than upon a theory of the biblical text. The Gospel of John identifies the incarnate Word as the disclosure of God (Jn 1:14, 18); Hebrews presents the Son as the climactic mode of divine address (Heb. 1:1–3); and the risen Christ claims comprehensive authority in the commissioning of the disciples (Mt. 28:18–20). The encounter in John 5:39–40 is especially significant: Jesus rebukes interlocutors who search the Scriptures but refuse to come to the one to whom, in the Gospel’s presentation, those writings testify. Luke 24:27 similarly portrays Israel’s Scriptures as interpreted in relation to the suffering and vindication of the Messiah.
These passages do not reduce Scripture to an optional record of religious experience. Rather, they resist treating textual possession or exegetical expertise as an end independent of the divine reality attested. In theological terms, the priority of Christ is not a licence to construct an allegedly biblical Jesus apart from the canonical witness; it specifies why that witness matters and to whom its authority directs the Church.
The normative significance of Scripture is equally clear. Second Timothy 3:16–17 characterises the sacred writings as inspired by God and useful for teaching, correction and formation, so that the person of God may be equipped for good work; the passage’s immediate reference is to writings Timothy has known from childhood (3:15), rather than to a subsequently fixed New Testament canon. Romans 15:4 similarly relates earlier Scripture to instruction, endurance and hope. These texts establish a substantive theological function without supplying a complete modern doctrine of inspiration or resolving all questions of literary form, historical representation and textual development.
As John Webster argues, Scripture is properly considered within God’s communicative action, not merely as an isolated object that secures its own standing (Webster 2003). The central claim is thus neither that textual authority is dispensable nor that its defence should dominate Christian life: Scripture is authoritative as an indispensable means by which the Church is addressed, judged and instructed by the gospel.
2. Witness and apologetic defence in the New Testament
The missionary commission of Acts 1:8 identifies the disciples as witnesses, while the speeches in Acts make the resurrection of Jesus central to apostolic testimony (Ac 2:32; 4:33). Paul similarly describes his proclamation as centred on Jesus Christ as Lord (2 Cor. 4:5), and the concluding mandate of Matthew’s Gospel combines disciple-making with baptism and teaching obedience (Mt. 28:19–20). It would be anachronistic to infer from these texts a direct instruction to defend a completed Christian Bible: the canonical collection took shape through subsequent ecclesial history. Their positive emphasis is nonetheless unmistakable. Christian witness includes public testimony to God’s action, scriptural reasoning, communal formation and concrete practices of allegiance. Richard Bauckham’s account of the relationship between biblical narrative and mission reinforces the point that scriptural particularity is directed towards communication beyond the Church’s own boundaries (Bauckham 2003).
The case for apologetics must be stated with equal care. First Peter 3:15–16 requires believers to be ready with a defence (apologia) of their hope, but specifies gentleness, respect and a good conscience; its setting is suffering and the scrutiny of Christian conduct, not a general programme for vindicating the inerrancy of every biblical assertion. Philippians 1:7 and 1:16 speak of the defence of the gospel, while Jude 3 urges the community to contend for the faith entrusted to the saints. In Acts 17:2–3 Paul reasons from Scripture; Acts 17:11 portrays the Bereans examining the Scriptures to assess his proclamation.
Taken together, these texts reject both anti-intellectualism and a polemical posture that makes victory in argument the measure of faithfulness. Defence is appropriate where the gospel is misrepresented, where a reasoned account is requested, or where the integrity of Christian teaching is at stake. Its subject and manner are constrained by the wider vocation of witness.
3. Ecclesial interpretation, fundamentalism and historical criticism
Because Scripture must be interpreted, the distinction between its authority and that of interpreters is indispensable. Jesus’ criticism of traditions that displace divine commandments (Mk 7:8–13) and of religious attentiveness that neglects justice, mercy and faithfulness (Mt. 23:23) provides an internal biblical reason to question the uncritical identification of inherited practice with God’s will. This does not prove that every traditional interpretation is mistaken, nor that the Church can dispense with doctrine or teaching authority. Rather, it establishes the possibility that professed loyalty to Scripture may coexist with distorted judgments about its meaning and demands. Ecclesial interpretations require public argument, attention to genre and context, testing against the larger canonical witness, and accountability to communities affected by their application. The interpreter’s confidence must not be mistaken for the authority of the text interpreted.
The term fundamentalism itself requires historical and analytical precision. In its early twentieth-century Protestant setting it denoted movements organised around fundamental Christian doctrines, although particular later forms have strongly emphasised biblical inerrancy and opposition to critical scholarship. Neither all evangelicals nor all defenders of strong views of inspiration may accurately be classified together. The relevant concern is more specific: where a prior account of what Scripture must say prevents serious examination of linguistic, literary or historical evidence, the practice of interpretation risks becoming circular.
Yet unlimited accommodation to contemporary cultural preferences creates an opposing danger, depriving Scripture of its capacity to criticise the Church. Historical-critical inquiry can assist faithful reading by examining provenance, genre, textual transmission and ancient social worlds; it cannot, by historical methods alone, adjudicate the theological claim that God addresses the Church through these writings. Responsible interpretation must keep both insights in view.
4. The UCA’s Basis of Union and ecclesial accountability
The Uniting Church in Australia’s Basis of Union articulates a particularly clear ordering of these authorities. Paragraph 3 places the Church’s faith and unity upon Jesus Christ, the risen and crucified Lord; paragraph 4 describes Christ as the Word of God who constitutes, rules and renews the Church. Paragraph 5 then names the Old and New Testaments as the unique prophetic and apostolic testimony in which the Church hears the Word of God, and by which its faith and obedience are nourished and regulated. It also insists that the Church’s preaching of Christ is controlled by the biblical witnesses. This formulation does not license the Church to appeal to an undefined “spirit of Jesus” against inconvenient texts. Equally, it does not collapse the living Word into the text considered apart from its proclamation and reception in the worshipping and witnessing life of the Church.
The document also establishes conditions for ongoing theological learning. Paragraph 11 expressly welcomes faithful and scholarly interpreters and the inheritance of literary, historical and scientific inquiry, while calling the Church to sharpen its understanding through engagement with contemporary thought. Paragraph 15 describes the authority of church councils as limited and mutually accountable; paragraph 17 regards ecclesial law as subject to revision so that it may better serve the gospel; and paragraph 18 seeks the Spirit’s correction of what is erroneous in the Church’s life.
These provisions do not dissolve doctrinal commitments into provisional opinion. They frame ecclesial authority as a disciplined service exercised under Christ and tested by Scripture, scholarship and communal discernment. The resulting ecclesiology makes the defence of one’s present interpretation an insufficient account of fidelity. There are times when faithful Christian witness may require the reconsideration of practices previously defended in the name of biblical authority.
5. The ethical credibility of Christian witness
The distinction has practical consequences for contested interpretations concerning slavery, the status of women, coercive power and other matters on which Christian traditions have disagreed. The existence of biblical passages invoked historically to legitimate injustice cannot be resolved simply by asserting that all criticism is hostility to Scripture; nor does the recognition of interpretive abuse settle every exegetical or ethical question. The responsible task is to examine particular texts in context, their reception history, the implications of the gospel and the experiences of those affected by ecclesial decisions.
Jesus’ criterion of mutual love (Jn 13:35), James’s demand that hearing issue in doing (Jas. 1:22), and Paul’s description of believers as a letter made known in their common life (2 Cor. 3:2–3) suggest that the plausibility of Christian testimony is inseparable from its moral performance. Ethical integrity does not establish the truth of Christianity by itself. However, persistent contradiction between Christian proclamation and actual conduct can reasonably discredit its public witness, and recovering personal credibility may be difficult or impossible.
Conclusion
The New Testament does not command an opposition between defending Christian belief and bearing witness to it. It authorises explanation, reasoning and contention for the apostolic faith, but places these activities within a more comprehensive calling to proclaim Christ, interpret Scripture, form disciples and practise the gospel. The decisive distinction is therefore one of theological priority. Christ’s authority is ultimate; Scripture’s authority is real and normative as the unique canonical witness to divine revelation; and the Church’s interpretive judgments are necessary but accountable and corrigible.
Christians need not defend every inherited reading to honour the Bible. They are called instead to receive its testimony with intellectual seriousness, offer reasons for their hope without coercion, and submit both doctrine and conduct to the continuing judgment of the living Christ. In that sense, the most faithful defence of biblical authority is not its insulation from criticism but the Church’s sustained willingness to be addressed and transformed by the Word to which Scripture bears witness.
Rev Dr Rod Benson lives in Sydney and writes about a range of topics from books and local history to food, faith, philosophy, ethics, research skills, and everyday life. Away from the keyboard, he enjoys cooking for friends, walking in the Australian bush, exploring a beach, discovering new restaurants, and reading philosophy, fiction and poetry. He is married to Emma and is minister of North Rocks Community Church, a Uniting Church congregation.
References
Bauckham, Richard, Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003).
Uniting Church in Australia, Basis of Union. Revised edition 1992. https://uniting.church/basisofunion/.
Webster, John, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
Wright, N. T., Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today (revised and expanded edition; New York: HarperOne, 2011).
Image source: Magnific
