I'm finally back from vacation and am trying to get back in the blogging saddle. And with my first post-vacation-post I figured I would post my review of the book Christian Theologies of Scripture: A Comparative Introduction, which has been edited by Justin Holcomb who lectures in religious studies and sociology at the University of Virginia and in theology at Reformed Theological Seminary. Justin also blogs at Common Grounds Online.
I'll begin by saying this is definitely an academic book, suitable for pastors with some knowledge of the history and theology of Christian Scripture, but I think it is mainly geared toward students and academicians. I'm not trying to go all postmodern here but, as is always the case, my reading of the book is greatly influenced by my own background. As one who has spent the entirety of his Christian life in conservative evangelical circles, most of my study has been related to issues of inerrancy and inspiration.
This book did touch on those issues, but usually tangentially, so I often found myself in unfamiliar territory while reading it. It is mainly a historical study, covering the way Christians have viewed the bible throughout history. It is a series of essays by various authors that begins with Origen and ends with postmodernism, so it's a pretty broad path to be covered in 320 pages. And in travelling that path, it seems to me that most of the authors focused on their subject's use of Scripture.
I bring that up because I think that many, if not most of my readers probably have a background similar to mine, and to let you know that the issues covered in this book may not be the ones you are familiar with.
Which brings up an interesting thing, in and of itself. This book is published by New York University Press and only two of the contributors are from evangelical institutions. Thus, the matters addressed here are going to be those of concern mainly to non-evangelical academics. Whereas we conservative evangelicals will usually be chiefly concerned with matters of inspiration, inerrancy and other such things, in those branches of the academy from which the authors came, these do not seem to be of great concern.
I'm speculating here and could be off base, but, as I read through the book, it seemed to be a given among most of the authors that the text of the bible itself, though foundational and important to the Christian life, is not revelatory. Usually, the "non-revelatory" nature of Scripture was simply asserted without being proven, which leads me to conclude that this is a settled issue for many in the academy.
And that does lead to my biggest disappointment in the book. Having surveyed the views of all kinds of leaders and theologians throughout history, what is conspicuously absent is any mention of the theology of the Princetonians, like Warfield and Hodge. The Princetonians and their theological progeny have been most instrumental in shaping the views of Scripture of those in conservative and evangelical circles and it seems to me that the book could have benefited from a chapter discussing their views.
But again, given the publisher and the contributors, I don't think a conservative evangelical audience is who they were aiming for, so you just have to take this into consideration if you are one and if you choose to read this book.
Having gotten that gripe off of my chest, the book is still helpful in many ways to those of us in the conservative evangelical tradition. It brings up nuances of different views thoughout history which are instructive. One of my favorite books on the bible is Has the Church Misread the Bible? by Moises Silva where he seeks to rescue some of our Christian forbears from some of the false accusations that have come to them. This book does some similar helpful work in discussing the interpretive methods of folks like Origen, Augustine, and Aquinas, particularly with regard to things like the allegorical method and some of it's companions and offshoots.
When I first began studying these matters I heard that there used to be people who interpreted Scripture allegorically, and the reason they did this is because they were stupid and ill-informed and didn't have a grasp on the divinely ordained method of historical-grammatical interpretation. Silva and the contributors of this book have done us a service in showing that, even though we may find fault with such things, those who did this had well-founded rationale behind them. I say this not to endorse allegorical interpretation in toto nor to disparage the very real and helpful insights that the historical-grammatical method has given us. I simply share these authors' concerns with giving a fair shake to some of our forefathers.
I was particularly interested in the chapters on Schleiermacher and Barth, mainly because, in the circles I run in, these have been seen as two of the baddest of the theological bad guys. I once heard of a seminary prof who, when he hit a bad shot while playing tennis would say "oh Schleiermacher," because he wasn't allowed to cuss. And, I'm not sure I've heard many, if any kind words about Barth.
There are just too many books and important historical figures out there for any of us to get to know, and so most of us on the conservative side will never have the time to do any extensive reading of Schleirmacher and Barth, I know I have no intentions of doing so. So, most of us what we know about them will be filtered through the views of their antagonists. What is helpful here is that if you have this book you can at least read something of their views from a sympathizer.
Which is not to say that I am sympathetic to their views. Barth sees a threefold Word of God which consists of Scripture, revelation and preaching, and he believes this is analogous to the Trinity. Although I have never conceived of it this way, the use of that analogy could very easily give a place to Scripture akin to the place we inerrantists give it. Yet, Barth weakens on the Scripture, only allowing that the Scripture is a witness to revelation. This is where I was especially hoping for a chapter from someone out of the Princeton tradition, because this identification of Scripture and revelation has been a hallmark of the Princeton tradition and the progeny of the Princetonians interacted extensively with Barth. I do think that Barth's unwillingness to acknowledge Scripture as revelation is a serious weakness and would have liked to seen something explaining and defending this view.
Though I disagree with Barth on Scripture and Revelation I have to give credit where credit is due. In some ways Barth seems to have put the Scripture to better use than some of his conservative critics. I had been taught that Barth didn't believe that the events described in the Bible happened in real history, but in a kind of supra history. The author of the chapter on Barth didn't deal with that matter specifically, but she did point out that, for Barth, Scripture describes the real world, to which our world and our lives must be conformed. In other words, it's not the case that we are living in the real world and need to adapt the Bible to our needs, rather the Bible describes the real world and we must adapt ourselves to it. That is beautiful. Barth says:
By faith we ourselves think what Scripture says to us, and in such a way that we must think it because it has become the determining force of our whole existence.
I don't know of a conservative who could to much better than that.
Schleirmacher was also interesting. He seeks to ground the authority of Scripture in our faith in Christ. In other words, Scripture is not authoritative as is, because it is the Word of God, it can only be seen as authoritative to us as we come to faith in Christ. This is consistent with his experiential view of Christianity, yet it misses the real ground of the authority of Scripture in it's identity as the Word of God.
Having said that, though I believe Schleiermacher to be wrong, his words did provoke me, and if you are from Westminster tradition I hope they provoke you, to re-examine your understanding of WCF chapter 1, paragraph 5:
We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend esteem of the Holy Scripture. (1 Tim. 3:15) And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (1 John. 2:20, John 16:13–14, 1 Cor. 2:10–12, Isa. 59:21)
I'm not arguing that Schlermacher's view is the same as Westminster's but I am saying that they both address the role of Christian experience in our understanding and acceptance of the veracity of the Word of God. I believe that Westminster grants the Scripture an identity and authority that is independent of Christian experience, whereas Schleirmacher does not. Yet, in this regard Schleiermacher is not as wildly off base as we sometimes may think. In this case, Westminster acknowledges that our persuasion of Scripture's authority is based on our experience. Something to mull over.
Those aren't the only interesting chapters in the book, just the ones that are most interesting to me. I will confess that I didn't really get Hans Urs von Balthasar or Hans Frei. The chapter on feminism and sexuality points out there are two schools of thought - rejectionist and revisionist. The words pretty well define themselves. Rejectionists see Christianity as "hopelessly patriarchal and misogynistic," and reject Scripture out of hand, while the revisionists are still informed by Scripture, though they seek to rescue it from it's patriarchal elements and interpreters.
The chapter on Scripture in the African-American Christian tradition was particularly informative. Again, keep in mind that this is "African-American," thus it is not a chapter dealing with the views of all Africans, or all blacks, it is dealing with the use of Scripture by blacks from Africa who came to America as slaves. These slaves were illiterate and were taught the Scriptures by their masters, with particular emphasis on submission to authority and hope in the next world. They were taught by their masters to have a hope that was purely eschatological. Yet, as some began to read and teach and hear stories of God's deliverance of the Israelites from Pharaoh's oppression they began to believe that the hope the Bible spoke of was a very this-worldly thing.
Thus, the African-American experience of Scripture was largely shaped through the lens of their experience as slaves, and their identity with the people of Israel, and their equation of their white slavemasters with Pharaoh. It's really a fascinating illustration of the tension between the now and the not yet. African Americans were taught that, for them the kingdom of God was purely not yet. Yet, when given the opportunity to read the Scripture for themselves, they found that there is a very real "now" aspect to the Scriptures.
There is much more to say about this particular matter, but I point this out to to illustrate again how this book is mainly concerned with the use of Scripture throughout history.
Overall, as I have intimated, this book will raise issues for the conservative evangelical that he or she may not have thought much about, and that's a good thing. But you may have some of the same difficulties that I did in reading it, as it brings up people and issues, and corresponding vocabulary and frameworks of thought which are unfamiliar. In other words, to get the most out of this book you can't read it passively, you are going to have to do some intellectual work. Those of a more academic bent, evangelical or not, will have an easier time reading the book because they will be more familiar with the terrain.
So, thanks to Justin and the publisher for sending this book to me. It was a gift for the purpose of review and I haven't received any compensation for this review.
Recent Comments