Five Kinds of Biblical Inspiration

It’s common for Christians to claim God inspired the authors who wrote the Bible. If God inspired the biblical authors, goes the thinking, then the Bible is inspired by God.

Steven Hause recently asked me about biblical inspiration. In my response, I claimed that biblical authors get some ideas about God right, but other biblical ideas are wrong. While the Bible is inspired, it has erroneous views of God and the world. Here’s a link to the interview, Symbiotic Inspiration.

My friend and former doctoral student Brian Felushko has been talking with me about inspiration for years. In my conversations with him and others, I realized that “inspiration” can mean many things.

In this essay, I outline five ways we might talk about God inspiring the biblical authors. I also identify which of the five I like. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

1. Inspired by an Idea

One way to talk about biblical inspiration is to say the biblical writers had ideas about God and wrote about their ideas. This way of talking doesn’t require God to reveal or even exist. But it says the idea of God inspired the authors of scripture.

I want to say more than this when I say, “God inspired the biblical authors.” I think God actually exists and communicates. I want to speculate about who God is and how God acts. But some people speak about biblical inspiration and mean the biblical author’s ideas about God inspired them to write the Bible, not God’s actual communication.

2. Inspired by an Object

Another way to talk about biblical inspiration says God exists and that existence in some way motivated the biblical authors. God in this view doesn’t choose to self-reveal in response to creation. God is more like an inanimate object or image: a painting, sunset, or bright light.

This view of God fits the ideas of some of Christianity’s most influential theologians. They say God is immutable, impassible, timeless, and simple. God so conceived is more like an inanimate thing than an interactive person.

This God doesn’t choose to self-reveal in give-and-receive relations with creation. In some mysterious way, an impersonal God communicated to the biblical writers. For a host of reasons, I reject this view of God. (For an introduction to an alternative vision, see Open and Relational Theology; a more scholarly argument is available in my book Pluriform Love.)

3. Symbiotic Inspiration

A third way to talk about biblical inspiration says God is a universal, personal, and uncontrolling Spirit who self-reveals to everyone at all times. This is the view I prefer.

By “personal,” I don’t mean God is a being with a localized body. “Personal” means an agent who has intentions, responds, and acts in relation to creation. A person can self-reveal, like when I disclose my thoughts to you by writing this essay.

I think God always communicates to everyone and everything. The Bible is a rich source of human interaction with this always communicating God. But creation is also a source of revelation. So are the arts and sciences. God self-reveals in many ways.

The symbiotic view of inspiration says the Bible is a product of both God and humans. As I see it, every moment involves both divine and creaturely causation. The moments described in the Bible are no different from other moments in this general sense. But overall, the Bible offers richer insights than other sources I know.

Perhaps most importantly, the symbiotic view I propose says God never controls creation. In fact, God is uncontrolling by nature. God cannot control anyone or anything.

I believe the uncontrolling God of love inspired the writers of the Bible. But God could not control what they wrote and what was included in the canon. Sometimes the writers intuited well what God communicated; other times they largely missed the message. The Bible is a mixed bag. An uncontrolling God also inspires us as we read scripture, but God cannot control our interpretations. (Tripp Fuller and I talk about this in our book God After Deconstruction.)

4. Inspired by an Occasionally Controlling God

The fourth way to talk about God inspiring the biblical writers also says God is universal and personal. But it claims God had the power to control the writers and occasionally did so. This is a common view of divine inspiration, but I reject it.

This view of biblical inspiration implies God can provide a crystal-clear, unambiguous revelation. And God occasionally did so but not always. God sometimes accommodated to the erroneous ideas of those who penned sacred writ.

We rightly wonder why this God doesn’t always provide a clear and error-free revelation. After all, many people claim not to find salvation because they are confused by the Bible. They don’t receive totally clear messages from God. Wouldn’t a loving and omnipotent God provide an error-free revelation to those seeking salvation? The omnipotent God who can communicate clearly but chooses to hide is not doing all this God can do.

I’m not attracted to this view of God or to the view of biblical inspiration it entails.

5. Inspired by an Always Controlling God

The final form of biblical inspiration is common among those who say, “God is totally sovereign” or “God is in control.” This form says every part of the Bible is divinely orchestrated and, therefore, free from error. I not only reject this view, I also don’t think we should call it “biblical inspiration.” In our everyday use of the word “inspire,” we don’t mean “one person entirely controlled another.”

Those who hold this view of biblical inspiration typically say the Bible as the inerrant, infallible “Word of God.” But in doing so they must ignore countless errors, contradictions, and mistakes. They may acknowledge that the oldest biblical manuscripts have discrepancies, but they make the vacuous claim that the original manuscripts were error-free. This cannot be proven. (For more on the errors of biblical inerrancy, see this short article.)

This fifth view of God also has the disastrous implications of implying that God ordains all evil. An always controlling God causes all things, good and bad. The view also implies that we are not truly free, and that chance is an illusion. Because of the pain and confusion it causes, I despise this view of biblical inspiration.

Conclusion

As I said above, I find the third form of biblical inspiration most viable. When I say God inspired the authors of scripture and inspires us, I mean God self-reveals in uncontrolling ways.

A huge advantage to my view is that I don’t have to claim God caused or allowed the biblical errors, discrepancies, contradictions, or mistakes. I can blame the writers, whom not even God could control. I also don’t have to justify divine violence in the Bible or mixed messages about God.

My approach fits the obvious fact that biblical writers saw the world from a particular point of view. It allows me to treat the Bible as literature to be analyzed like other literature might. But it also prompts me to be open to the possibility that the Bible tells me something true about God, myself, and the world.

The symbiotic view of biblical revelations requires me to make judgments about what might be more accurate in the Bible and what might be less accurate. I bring to bear a number of factors when making such judgments. My view of God makes a difference in this process. So does my understanding of history, myself, literature, and more. It’s an ongoing process of approximation and fallible discernment.

I don’t claim to be certain about my biblical interpretation or view of inspiration. But I don’t think anyone can be certain. We all see through a darkened glass, as the Bible says. But I try to do the best I can, and I try to be clear about my preferences. (On the problems with absolute certainty and absolute mystery, see this short essay.)

Am I missing something? What are your thoughts?