The irony is this: a high regard for Scripture as the "Word of God" on the one hand and a low regard for Scripture when it comes to interpretation.
In avoiding the historical question of the Enlightenment (which was asked polemically in ways designed to undermine Scripture as the Word of God), the evangelical church has asserted the authority of Scripture (often in unhealthy ways) without doing the hard work in coming to understanding the historical and cultural context in which it was written.
Lack of serious reflection about how the Bible is Scripture and how it should be used in the life of the Church leaves many clergy without a way of doing satisfactory interpretation. (Tom Wright provides, I think a good way of answering the question "How can the Bible be authoritative?". See his article at http://www.sahs-info.org/articles.html)
This is to say nothing of the laity which is dependant on a poorly trained clergy which is ever tempted to choose which lexical meaning fits the theme of this week's sermon and interpretation turns into mere "projection." On the other hand, theological frameworks lurk beneath positivistic readings- reading the Bible in ways that only confirm what one was taught as if it was the most obvious reading of a text.
The fragmentary and highly subjective readings of Scripture each claim to be the most objective and obvious. The irony is embarassing for many of us remaining in the evangelical fold.
A Way Forward?
I think Critical Realism provides a way forward in asserting the truth of Scripture, first in its context, and only then for us in our context. To say Scripture is a disembodied a-historical truth for all times may seem to be a high statement of the worth of Scripture, but it does not help us interpret Scripture. Furthermore, it implicitly denies that Christianity (and Judaism as well) is a historical religion. The very idea that God is the author of history, creator and redeemer and was revealed in a cultural and historical figure, Jesus Christ, makes it possible that God is still at work within our present cultural and historical context. The importance of the New Testament for Christian faith cannot be underestimated and because of this, understanding its meaning within the context of First-Century Judaism is essential. This is a task almost all Evangelicals, clergy or laity are not trained for.
It is much harder, but is ultimately worth it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'd add that for us people of European descent, it pays to acknowledge that the polemical attacks on the authority of Scripture during the "Enlightenment" had a great deal to do with the bad situation that emerged in Europe in the wake of the 30 years war from 1618-1648.
Throughout Europe, Churches were often just hand-puppets of the State and Orthodoxy was wielded as an instrument of statecraft. This made it hard for more open-ended critical study of scripture to proceed and develop in ways that would have a transformative impact on the church and society.
A lot of US distinctives in Christianity reflect this tragic history and the problems with fundamentalism more often reflect how we cling to our received human-made precepts and wrongly raise them to the status of doctrine.
dlw
Post a Comment