The Bible was ‘clear’…

Some really interesting historical illustrations from Rachel Held Evans of the pitfalls of a "the Bible clearly says" type of hermeneutic. I don't beleive that these examples should keep us from EVER making final statements about the meaning of scripture, but they do admonish us to be ever more honest and humble in our interpretations. So often that which we think is clear from scripture is really nothing more than our effort to justify our own culture with the words of scripture.





See the blog here: The Bible was ‘clear’…

How to take a stand on difficult issues (part 7)

This the final part of the series. The purpose of this series was to help myself and my students and whoever might also read this blog to think about how we talk and debate about difficult issues in the church. This is not something that we always do very well. Some would rather not talk about difficult issues at all. Others enjoy arguing about difficult issues a little too much. I just think that we have to do a better job in this area. There are so many difficult issues that need some sort of principled position from the follower of Jesus. But how do we approach these issues in ways that honor the message of the Gospel? This series has been a small attempt to try and answer this question.

You can read the other posts here.

Part 1: Have I loved the person on the other side ofthis issue?
Part 2: Have I done my exegetical homework?
Part 3: Have I studied the opinions of the church bothpast and present?
Part 4: Have I clearly identified and defined the issue?
Part 5: Have I employed sound critical reasoning skills?
Part 6: Have I taken the time to understand the otherside of this issue?

Part 7: Have I humbled myself (and my tradition) enough to listen?

One of my mentors in ministry was Dr. Robert Lowery at Lincoln Christian Seminary. I had several classes in New Testament studies with Dr. Lowery, and in virtually every class he would drill into his students that the most important principle for biblical interpretation is humility. I teach in a place where it has been standard to say that “context is king.” While I understand the sentiment, context is certainly very important in biblical interpretation, I strongly disagree. Biblical study of any kind must begin with a basic choice. Will I listen to the Word or will I dictate to the Word? Will I submit or won’t I? This is part of what James was getting at in James 1 when he said that we should humbly accept the word planted in us which can save us. Such a humble approach leads us to be doers of the word rather than just hearers.

I can be an expert in the Greek and Hebrew languages, I can study the history and culture of first century Palestine and the Roman world, I can take note of the smallest point of syntax and grammar, I can be sensitive to the distinctiveness in genres and figures of speech, and indeed I can be a master at recognizing the importance of literary context both immediate and canonical – but if I don’t have humility I will continue to see only what I want to see and hear only what I want to hear in the text. Context doesn’t heal the human heart and fix our pride. Lest we become too mechanical and scientific, we should remember Paul’s exhortation in 1 Corinthians 2 that spiritual things are spiritually discerned. This doesn’t happen until we have humbled ourselves and have resolved to listen to the word of God in the text.

Sometimes my students roll their eyes because they hear it so much, but I still carry on Dr. Lowery’s legacy in my classes. The most important and first principle in interpretation is humility. Never is this more important than when it comes time to take a stand on a difficult issue. Too many times Christians will debate from an ideological position rather than a sound exegetical position. There is not an honest attempt to understand or explain an issue. There is only the attempt to win an argument and score points with our constituency. We are sometimes bad about constructing “shibboleth” type tests (Judges 12:5-6) to decide who’s in and who’s out rather than humbly and honestly engaging an issue. “What is your interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2?” “What is your position on inerrancy?” “What do you believe about baptism or the Millennium or glossolalia?” “Do you interpret Revelation literally?” Questions like these are too often not an invitation to a discussion or even a debate. Instead they are traps designed to see if you are safe or orthodox or “one of us.” It’s not really helpful or honest.

When discussing a difficult issue, we must learn to navigate the difficult terrain between rigid dogmatism and non-committal openness. We must choose to stand somewhere on difficult issues. (And some issues are of such importance that we must take a clear and public stand.) We should not be so afraid of being wrong or corrected that we never say anything at all. This is false humility. But at the same time, we should be humble enough to be willing to change or nuance our position over time. A person who has every issue resolved in their own mind either has a very closed and arrogant mind or hasn’t thought enough about the issue.

How to take a stand on difficult issues (Part 1)

One of the things that we talk about every semester in my "Issues in Interpretation" class is how to take a stand on difficult issues of theology and hermeneutics. What are those principles and those virtues that should guide us when debating and conversing about contentious issues related to the Bible, culture, theology, etc.? Now that the semester is finally over, I am going to post over the next several days some of my own principles on how to take a stand on difficult issues. As usual, I welcome your comments.


1. Have I loved the person on the other side of this issue?

There is an Indian proverb that goes something like this: “There is no point in cutting off a person’s nose and then giving him a rose to smell.” Someone else said: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The same person even said to love even your enemies. Jesus came into the world full of both grace and truth. It seems that the manner that he came into the world should be the same manner in which we try to conduct ourselves in the world. The second greatest commandment is not suspended the moment that we enter into a theological debate. This is not to mean that we shouldn’t have a position and defend that position with conviction. (To let a person continue in obvious error without any sort of confrontation may be “nice” and “tolerant,” but it certainly isn’t loving.) And there are some issues (more on this later) which demand a stronger, uncompromising defense. I am simply saying that in the midst of our debates we shouldn’t forget that there is another person on the other side of the debate who is deeply loved by God and should be deeply loved by us as well.

In other words, ask yourself what is the motivation for your debate? I’m worried about the Christian whose sole motivation is to win a debate. We imagine ourselves, like Saul of Tarsus, doing the Lord’s work with righteous zeal. If other people get offended or hurt or angry along the way, that is just the cost of doing battle for the Lord. We are God’s champions. But in the way that we conduct ourselves, we commit violence; violence against our neighbor and brother and ultimately violence against the purpose of Christ. So often what we are defending is not really God anyway. Because of our own insecurity, we end up defending only our own pride. Our theological positions become like idols that demand our devotion and our defense.

Be careful of disembodying your opponent on any difficult issue. We may be tempted to say, “It is the principle that matters. Nothing else.” This sounds a lot more righteous than it actually is. Remember, it was the Greeks who loved to argue about disembodied ideas (Acts 17?). Christian theology is embodied. People matter in the kingdom of God. But sometimes it seems that we love ideas so much more than people. People are messy. People are difficult. People take time. People require our service and our love. Ideas on the other hand are manageable. There is little selflessness in an idea. In fact, I can easily use an idea in my own service. Too often my ideas may seem to be about something else, but really they are about me.

We disembody our opponents in a number of ways. (One way might be in calling them “opponents.”) But one of the most common ways that we disembody others today is by engaging in debate through the safe anonymity of the Internet. The Internet has empowered us to say things to people online that we would never dream of saying to their face. The Internet has made slander convenient. Like a video game that allows us to virtually and safely fight all manner of enemies, the Internet has given us an arena in which to send our disembodied ideas into battle against other disembodied ideas. I’m not saying that we should never dialogue on-line, but we should probably develop the habit of asking ourselves whether or not I would say in person what I’ve just said on-line. If the answer is “no” then you are probably running the risk of disembodying your opponent. And let’s all just admit it. All of our verbal jousting on-line has paid very little actual benefit to the kingdom and in some cases has done a great deal of harm.

Augustine and obscure passages

“In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.”

from The Literal Meaning of Genesis
 
Alister McGrath (The Passionate Intellect) points out that by "literal" Augustine really meant "literary." Interpretations should be faithful to the literary intent of a passage. (For instance, a passage intended to be taken figuratively should be taken figuratively.)  Augustine applied this principle first of all to the interpretation of Genesis 1-2 leaving open the possibility of various potential intepretations of the text other than a literal six day creation. (Notice that Augustine also says that these different interpretations are not necessarily outside of what we might call orthodoxy.) Augustine's words however have a much broader application than just the beginning chapters of Genesis. It is helpful to always remember that our interpretations of a great number of difficult passages should be held onto lightly.

Biblical Inerrancy and the Licona Controversy, Christian News

Christianity Today just wrote up a brief article concerning the controversy swirling around Michael Licona and his interpretation of Matthew 27:51-54 in his 700 page volume defending the historical, physical resurrection of Jesus, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. You can read more about the controversy - as well as a critique of Licona's interpretation here: Biblical Inerrancy and the Licona Controversy, Christian News. Personally, it's sad that what is widely acknowledged (even by Licona's critics) to be a very capable, thorough, and orthodox work is being called into question simply because he offers a symbolic/apocalyptic interpretation of four verses from Matthew which have caused scholars to scratch their heads for years.

The issue, of course, is bigger than this particular text. The issue is has really become about Licona's committment to the innerancy of scripture and what it means to believe that scripture is "without error." Can a person hold to the inerrancy of scripture without adopting a rigid literalism regarding certain texts? The above article quotes the Chicago statement on inerrancy:

Article XVIII of the Chicago Statement makes this point with precision: “We
affirm that the text of the Scripture is to be interpreted by
grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and
devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture. We deny the legitimacy of
any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to
relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its
claims to authorship.” Furthermore, the Chicago Statement requires that “history
must be treated as history.”

But this quote highlights a problem faced regularly in our exegesis of an inerrant text. A committment to grammatico-historical exegesis requires that we do in fact take into account the literary forms and devices of scripture - including figurative or symbolic language. Most everyone would agree that Jehovah's Witnesses are not being faithful to the intent of scripture to take the number 144,000 literally in the book of Revelation. But it's pretty noncontroversial (in most circles) to identify the language of Revelation as largely symbolic. But what about other genres like the gospels?  Licona isn't questioning whether the text of Matthew 27 is true. He's questioning whether or not a literalistic interpretation is faithful to the text's intent. It's not as simple as saying, "I believe in inerrancy, so therefore, I believe the text to be literally true." The word "literally" has been smuggled into the definition and has had the effect of dramatically changing the definition. The bumper sticker cliche "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." may sound good to some. But it is not only naive, it also (ironically) undermines the authority of the text.  A committment to inerrancy actually calls us to study and discuss the literary meaning of a text not just the literal meaning of a text.  A committment to inerrancy calls us to robust and humble hermeneutics where Christians may actually disagree with how to take certain texts while agreeing theologically with each other about what scripture is. We simply disagree with the best way to understand it.

Maybe Licona's right and maybe he's wrong on this text.  But what this controversy reveals is the danger of a simplistic and overly literalistic understanding of inerrancy.  It is frightening that some are calling for him to be kicked out of the ETS simply because he doesn't walk lock-step (on this ONE text) with this rigid definition of inerrancy. My goodness. Is this all that it takes for us to disfellowship each other? Have mercy. (It's worth noting, by the way, that Licona is now rather agnostic about the text in question. He says that it may be literal or figurative. But apparently that's not good enough for some of his inquisitors.) I am committed to inerrancy, but it's no wonder that so many young theologians and students are so cynical about this whole issue in light of these types of witch hunts.

Foundations Only a Few Can Build

This is a sermon that was preached by Dr. Robert Lowery of Lincoln Christian Seminary in chapel services on Feb. 8, 2001. Dr. Lowery was a passionate communicator and devoted student of God's word - as this sermon so clearly illustrates. Through his many years of service in the seminary, Dr. Lowery positively impacted the lives and the ministries of thousands - including my own. My own teaching ministry owes a huge debt of gratitude to Dr. Lowery's influence and encouragement. After listening again to this sermon yesterday I was reminded all over again of just how much my own thinking on scripture, hermeneutics, and ministry I have happily stolen from Dr. Lowery through the years.


When I first accepted the call to teach at Ozark Christian College, Dr. Lowery shared with me a prayer of his for all of his students - especially those who teach. His prayer was from Psalm 119:99 - "I have more insight than all my teachers, for I meditate on your statutes." I laughed when I heard it, and it still sounds outrageous to think about today. But really, shouldn't this be the prayer of every teacher and mentor? That his students may eventually be able to say, "I have gained more insight than my teachers - not because they were unfaithful or ignorant or irrelevant - but because they faithfully pointed me to the timeless truths of God's word. These truths which I have learned to consume and which I have learned to let consume me."

Dr. Lowery died last week after a prolonged battle with cancer. The man who knew more about the book of Revelation than anyone I've ever known, now knows immeasurably more than he ever imagined. Thank you, Dr. Lowery.

Listening is a Virtue

We might call good listening a skill, but it is better described as a virtue, for it rests less on intellectual ability and more on an attitude of openness that is not just willing but eager to let the others have their say--in their language and from their perspective.  Otherwise they are reduced to the status of a self-justifying mirror in which we see ourselves as right because they are wrong and we are different from them.

Westphal, Whose Community? Which Interpretation? (Loc. 2132-35 Kindle Ed.)

Chastened Epistemology

We need not think that hermeneutical despair ("anything goes") and hermeneutical arrogance (we have "the" interpretation) are the only alternatives.  We can acknowledge that we see and interpret "in a glass, darkly" or "in a mirror, dimly" and that we know "only in part" (1 Cor. 13:12), while ever seeking to understand and interpret better by combining the tools of scholarship with the virtues of humbly listening to the interpretations of others and above all to the Holy Spirit.

Westphal, Whose Community? Which Interpretation? (Loc. 174-178 Kindle Ed.)

Humility in the Right Location

What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition . . . [and] settled upon the organ of conviction, where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table.

G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 31-32

Morality of Literary Understanding

...With regard to the moralityof literary understanding, Augustine advocates what is for him the prime hermeneutical virtue, namely, charity. This is a far cry fromt eh typical modern appraoch that puts a premium on distrust and suspicion, a strategy best exemplified perhaps by an essay by W.K. Clifford entitled "The Ethics of Belief." Clifford argues that it is immoral to believe something unless you first have sufficient evidence or proof: "To sum up: it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." In contrast, Augustine's treatise On the Usefulness of Belief states that "nothing would remain stable in human society if we determined to believe nothing that we could not scientifically establish." With regard to reading, it "is most honorable to believe that an author was a good man, whose writings were inteded to benefit the human race and posterity." The first hermeneutic reflex, therefore, should be charity towards the author. If we come to a text believing that there is nothing in it, we are likely to go away as empty as we come. Augustine encourages readers to approach texts, paricularly the classics and especially the Scriptures, in the expectation that they contain something valuable and true...

...There is something in the text that is not of the reader's own making. The believing reader must not violate but venerate this "other." For readers come not only to knoweldge but also to self-knowledge when they allow the text to have its say. The interpretive virtues that I will commend throughout this work also figure among the cardinal virtues of Christian theology: faith, hope, love, and humility. These are the same virtues that make society possible. Life together is largely interpretation; good hermeneutics makes good neighbors. The Golden Rule, for hermeneutics and ethics alike, is to treat significant others--texts, persons, God--with love and respect.

Kevin Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 32

The Exaggerated Importance of Extra-Biblical Texts

It is remarkable how frequently there is the tacit assumption that we can be more confident about how we interpret secondary first-century sources than we are of how we interpret the New Testament writers themselves. But it seems to me that there is a prima facie case for thinking that our interpretations of extra-biblical literature are more tenuous than our interpretations of the New Testament. In general, this literature has been less studied than the Bible and does not come with a contextual awareness matching what most scholars bring to the Bible. Moreover, the Scripture comes with the added hope that there is conherency because of divine inspiration and that the Holy Spirit will illumine Scripture through humble efforts to know God's mind for the sake of the glory of Christ.

John Piper, The Future of Justification (Wheaton: Crossway, 2007), 34-35.

The Active Word

The word creates and sustains…Genesis 1:3; Psalm 33:6; Hebrews 1:3; John 1:1-3

The word is a sword…Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 4:12-13; Revelation 1:16

The word saves…James 1:21; Psalm 107:20

The word is personified…Isaiah 55:11; Psalm 147:15-18; Acts 6:7, 12:24, 13:49

The word equips…2 Timothy 3:16-17

The word builds up…Acts 20:32

The word sanctifies…John 17:17

The word gives life…John 6:63, 68; Acts 13:46, 48; Phil. 2:16; 1 John 1:1

The word sustains…Matthew 7:24-27

The word is a lamp…Psalm 119:105; 2 Peter 1:19

The word abides forever…1 Peter 1:25; Psalm 119:89, 160; John 10:35

The word gives hope…Psalm 119:43, 74, 81, 114, 147, 130:5

Transformational Hermeneutics

If you open yourself, day by day and week by week, to the message of scripture, its grand sweep and its small details, and allow the faithful preaching of Jesus and his achievement to enter your consciousness and soak down into your imagination and heat, then the admittedly uncomfortable work of God's word will be happening on a regular basis, showing you (as we say) where you really are, what's going on deep inside.

N.T. Wright, Hebrews for Everyone, 41.

Alexander Campbell

There is a distance which is properly called the speaking distance, or the hearing distance, beyond which the voice reaches not, and the ear hears not. To hear another, we must come within that circle which the voice audibly fills. Now we may with propriety say, that as it respects God, there is an understanding distance. All beyond that distance cannot understand God; all within it can easily understand him in all matters of piety and morality. God himself is the centre of that circle, and humility is its circumference. The wisdom of God is as evident in adapting the light of the Sun of Righteousness to our spiritual vision, as in adjusting the light of day to our eyes. The light reaches us without an effort of our own; but we must open our eyes; and if our eyes be sound, we enjoy the natural light of heaven. There is a sound eye in reference to spiritual, as well as in reference to material light. Now, while the philological principles and rules of interpretation enable many men to be skilful in biblical criticism, and in the interpretation of words and sentences, who neither perceive nor admire the things represented by those words, the sound eye contemplates the things themselves, and is ravished with the spiritual and divine scenes which the Bible unfolds.

Alexander Campbell, “The Bible-Principles of Interpretation,” Millennial Harbinger 3 (January, 1846).

Authority of Scripture

Once you can make scripture stand on its hind legs and dance a jig, it becomes a tame pet rather than a roaring lion. It is no longer “authoritative” in any strict sense; that is, it may be cited as though in “proof” of some point or other, but it is not leading the way, energizing the church with the fresh breath of God himself. The question must always be asked, whether scripture is being used to serve an existing theology or vice versa.

N.T. Wright, The Last Word (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2005), 70

John Wycliffe

For him the Bible was an all-sufficient guide without contradictions; mirroring the truth of God, it gave access to metaphysical reality. Wycliffe not only insisted on the primacy of Scripture; he also refused to separate theology from the Bible and laid a foudnation for reform by calling for church doctrine and practice to line up with Scripture. Using Augustine's principles, Wycliffe believed that the law of love should guide interpretation, that faith precedes understanding, and that the essential message of Scripture is plain to those who submit humbly to illumination by the Holy Spirit. Although colored by allegory, his preaching and his theological works were always built upon the brammatical-historical sense of Scripture, and he said all allegory should have a Christological focus. Wycliffe stood for the priesthood of the believer: individuals could work out their own salvation with the help of the gospel and without the church being the essential mediator of grace. Since this called for a Bible in the common language, he began translating the Vulgate into English. This work was completed after his death, probably by Nicholas of Hereford and John Purvey.

James T. Spivey Jr. in Bruce Corley et al, Biblical Hermeneutics, 2nd ed (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2002), 109.

Application

R. Ishmael, his son, says, “He who learns so as to teach—they give him a chance to learn and to teach. He who learns so as to carry out his teachings—they give him a chance to learn, to teach, to keep, and to do.” R. Sadoq says, “Do not make [Torah teachings] a crown with which to glorify yourself or a spade with which to dig. (So did Hillel say [M. 1:13], “He who uses the crown perishes.”) “Thus have you learned: Whoever derives worldly benefit from teachings of Torah takes his life out of this world.”

Abot 4:5

Humility

R. Levitas of Yabneh says, “Be exceedingly humble, for the hope of humanity is the worm.”

Abot 4:4, A.

Attitude of the Reader

There are four traits among those who sit before the sages: a sponge, a funnel, a strainer, and a sifter. A sponge—because he sponges everything up; a funnel—because he takes in on one side and lets out on the other; a strainer—for he lets out the wine and keeps in the lees; and a sifter—for he lets out the flour and keeps in the finest flour.

Abot 5:15

Principles of Interpretation

1. A close reading of the text cannot be done without a perspective provided by one’s preunderstanding as identified by a “sociology of knowledge” perspective.
2. I must distinguish presupposition from prejudice.
3. We must seek controls that enable us to work with presuppositions (the positive) rather than to be dominated by prejudices (the negative).
a. We must be open to new possibilities.
b. We must understand the dangers of merely assuming our presuppositions.
c. The interpreter must not only address the text but must allow the text to address him or her (the hermeneutical circle).
d. Polyvalent interpretations per se are unnecessary, but a pluralistic or polyvalent attitude is critical.
4. We must all good hermeneutical principles to shape our exegesis and to control our tendency to read our prejudices into the text.
a. Consider the genre or type of literature and interpret each according to the proper rules of their particular language game.
b. The structural development of the passage provides a control against artificial atomistic exegesis.
c. Semantic research further helps the reader to discover the sense and reference of the passage.
d. A judicious use of background information helps us avoid the opposite error, namely, ignoring the historical aspect in favor of the poetic.
e. The implied author and implied reader in the text provide an indispensable perspective for the intended meaning of a text.
f. The question of verification of competing interpretive possibilities is essential for any system. This is a threefold process: inductively, deductively, sociologically.

Grant Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 516-519.