The question of biblical authority is not new, but rarely gets asked as directly as Yvette Flunder, an activist and womanist pastor affiliated with the United Church of Christ. In April 2026, she made waves with the following statement:

This is a very dangerous thing that I’m about to say now, but since I – a bit dangerous, I’m of the opinion that we need a third testament because the Bible has become problematic … I am completely frustrated with the ways in which the text speaks to the kind of vitriolic God … And people will say, “Well it’s in the book.” And I said, “Then we need to pour [sic] that page out.” And they say, “You can’t do it, it’s the Word of God.” I said, “No, it’s words about God. Come on now. But is it the Word of God? No. It is not the Word of God. 

The claim that we “need a third testament” because the Bible has become “problematic” reveals far more about the speaker than it does about Scripture. There are at least four major issues with her proposal. 

First, it assumes that truth must conform to cultural standards. But if divine revelation is from God, then it sits in judgment over us—we do not have the authority to revise it whenever it judges us unfavorably (cf. John 12:48). Calling the Bible “problematic” is simply another way of saying, “It won’t let me do what I want.” This is not a theological argument; it is a complaint. 

Second, Flunder misunderstands the nature of revelation. Scripture presents itself as complete and sufficient. The faith was “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3)—in other words, a complete collection, not an evolving conversation. The “third testament” Flunder proposes would not be any continuation of previously revealed truth. Her theology makes it clear that her vision is nothing short of a contradiction of what God has already said. It is also substituting what she wants for what God has decreed. 

Third, this repeats one of history’s oldest patterns. Whenever human beings have found God’s Word inconvenient, they have attempted to supplement, revise, or discard it in favor of something more accommodating. But replacing revelation is not reform; it is rebellion (cf. Galatians 1:6–9).

Finally, Flunder’s statements expose a deeper issue: authority. Who decides what is acceptable and what is “problematic”? If the standard is human preference, then any supplement to the Bible will simply mirror the spirit of the age. Indeed, it would be an error to speak of it in singular terms, because if each person decides what constitutes a problem, then there is no third testament, but rather a nearly endless collection of supplements as varied as the preferences of the people proposing them.  

Human beings have always wanted to exercise some degree of personal autonomy free from God’s will. The real issue is not that the Bible has become problematic. It is that human beings have found that God’s desires often collide with our own. And when they do, people feel free to disparage Scripture, consider themselves enlightened, and sit in judgment over God’s Word when it should be the other way around.