There are many people who don’t identify as progressive and
who don’t read the Bible like “fundamentalists.” (Actually, fundamentalism as a
movement has to do with a lot more than a way of reading the Bible, but that’s
neither here nor there. If you want to learn more about this matter, though,
check out this article.)
Ok. I’m glad that’s out of the way now.
So… there are, within the blogosphere, a couple of recent of
posts on how to read the Bible, one from a progressive perspective, and one from a more evangelical or conservative perspective. Gentle reader, I implore
you: do not be drawn into the polarity expressed in these two articles. (But
thanks, John Meunier, for pointing these out).
Let’s take the first post, “16 Ways Progressive Christians Interpret the Bible,” by Roger Wolsey. Many of these sixteen characteristics
would also describe the way many more conservative Christians read the Bible.
In my own tradition of United Methodism, there are many people who would
self-identify as evangelical who do not affirm total biblical infallibility,
read the Bible using the tools of critical scholarship, give ample
consideration to historical and literary contexts, read prayerfully, make use
of their knowledge of biblical languages, and read in community.
The points in Rev. Wolsey’s essay that are the most
significant are numbers 11, 12, and 13. These refer to ways in which the
theological and ethical convictions of readers inform their judgment about how
best to interpret a particular passage of Scripture. Whether we admit it or
not, we bring certain value systems to the text, value systems that in many
cases are formed by our faith communities. These values, rather than a
particular scriptural hermeneutic, tend to determine which of the “camps” we
most identify with. The relationship between the Bible and our communities of
interpretation is dialectical. Our values are formed by the Bible, while they
also come to bear on the ways in which we understand the Bible.
As for the second post, "Stop Taking the Bible 'Seriously,'" Rev. Chad Holtz argues that the
issue is that Christians must approach the Bible with a posture of submission, and the position represented in Rev. Wolsey’s post is not properly submissive. Were
I Rev. Wolsey, my response would be, “I submit to the Bible, but I have a different
idea than you do about the Bible’s ethical imperatives.” Rev. Holtz says that
we should not pick and choose which passages of the Bible to honor.
Nevertheless, all Christians do this. We do it all the time. Simply saying we
don’t doesn’t make it true. Conservatives do it. Progressives do it. Evangelicals
do it. Orthodox do it. Roman Catholics do it. Fundamentalists do it. It is unavoidable. The only real question is
on what basis we “pick and choose.”
As should be clear by now, I found the analysis in neither
post persuasive. Our doctrine of scripture involves a particular religious
epistemology. In other words, it involves a certain account of how we can
acquire religious knowledge. Our faith claims as Christians are not necessarily
dependent upon our religious epistemology. In other words, we could have two
Christians with very similar beliefs about God, Christology, resurrection, and
the Christian life, who have different understandings of the nature and
function of scripture.
As United Methodists, we really need to get more clarity on the nature and function of scripture. I think even Wesley himself had some considerable
confusion about this matter. The way he talked about the Bible and the way in
which he used the Bible were not always consistent. (I wrote an article in
which I discuss this. If you’re interested, see “Scripture as Canon” in Wesley, Wesleyans, and Reading Bible as
Scripture, eds. Joel B. Green and David F. Watson, Baylor, 2012). Getting
clearer on scripture, of course, won’t solve all of our problems, but it will
help us to avoid some arguments that we really don’t need to have.
Lately I've been reading Luther, and it's surprising how open he is about his canon within the canon. John, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 Peter and 1 John are all you need, he says. Plus Psalms. And when you read only those books you do get a classic Protestant Christianity. Classic Wesleyan too. Thanks for this post. It was very helpful.
ReplyDeleteGlad it was helpful! Yes, at least Luther is clear and open about what he's doing. Wesley was not as clear about this, but I think in a lot of ways he followed suit. 1 John was very important for Wesley.
ReplyDeleteThanks. I didn't find either of those articles especially persuasive, either.
ReplyDelete