Scripture, Interpretation, and Joshua Hochschild
Note: This is in a sense an internal discussion in seminary, but I think everyone can gain something from it and please feel free to comment on my view!
There is always an inclination in evangelicalism (broadly defined, please) to bandy around the charge "That's not what the Bible says!" or to set up a opposition to "what the Church (Anglican, Roman, fill in the blank) teaches" and "what Scripture says." I think this perspective usualy betrays itself when someone frustratedly asks "Why can't we just get back to Scripture!?!"
Good question. We can't. But before you scream "relativist!" let me make it clear that we were never intended to "go back to Scripture" in the way this phrase claims. We aren't Muslims, we don't have some kind of original static divine speak in the Bible. If that were true we would all be learning Greek and Hebrew and even then we would never be sure about if we were right since our understanding of these ancient languages is not perfect. Check out a Greek concordance next time if you don't believe me. We as Christians believe that the Word of God is the inspired words of Scripture AS INTERPRETED BY HIS CHURCH. I think this bold part is essential and is the key to stearing clear of a lot of troubles. Let's look at this intepretation bit, then two examples of why it is important, and then get to the name in the title that you are all wondering about.
First, we shouldn't be scared of interpretation; we all do it all the time. There is nothing else in life, really. Just walking down the street today I was looking at cars - but I wasn't looking at cars as some detached object scientifically. I was looking at them AS moving things to be avoided. Looking out my window now I can look at a car AS something which collects rain, or AS something made of metal, or AS something I should key later. The important thing to notice is that I never look at "a car", I always look at a car AS something. My situtation, background, context, spiritual condition (yes!) all play a part in the Interpretive Framework in which I live and move. This is perfectly reasonable - we are embodied beings that are involved with the world around us. Dasein as being-in-the-world if you like Heidegger.
If you accept this (I can't imagine not accepting it once you think about it, really) then this should also apply to how we read Scripture. We always read it AS something: a source of doctrinal truth, a rule book on how to live life, a song to be sung, a poem to be awed by, etc. The possibilities are endless and that's what makes being a finite human so muke fun! We always move "further up and further in" as we meet God in Scripture, to quote C.S. Lewis (anyone know the reference?). But the important part here is that we are always interpreting Scripture within a framework. Let's make that clear: we never know Scripture as "plain Scripture", we only know and understand it inasmuch as we understand anything - within a certain framework which guides our understanding. Gadamer calls this "prejudice" in positive terms, Heidegger calls it "fore-understanding", I call it true.
What does this mean then? Well, it means that the claim "Scripture says" always has to be read as "Scripture, as I interpret it with _______ framework, says." Now this does not mean that Scripture can say anything you want it too truthfully; some frameworks have more claim to truth then others; but the essential point is we need to compare frameworks before we get to Scripture in heated debate. Roman Catholics are not "less" Scriptural than Protestants, they just interpret Scripture through a different hermeneutical key: the Magesterium. Protestants have their own hermeneutical key (well the best do, others are slaves to the newest wind of doctrine and misunderstanding) whether it is Westminster Confession, Luther's Works, 39 Articles and Prayer Book, whatever. Basically none of us comes to Scripture in a vacuum or free of an interpreted framework within which to read it; interpretative frameworks are essential to understanding itself! If you don't think you have an interpretive framework within which you read and understand Scripture there are only two possibilities: 1. You have a really shady and unexamined one (most likely), or 2. You are God.
Let's see how this works out in practice for a moment since theory gets boring (to some!). First an example from Church history, then a more recent version.
1. Arians! Okay, I imagine that everyone has a basic idea what these fellows said. Arius was a fourth century Bishop (!) who taught that Jesus was not of the same substance as God the Father, basically that God was the Uncreate, Jesus was first among creatures, still divine, but "unlike" the Father. Athanasius (a young deacon - who said they weren't important!) established the orthodox position at the Council of Nicea in 325. More than the historical struggle what interests me is why Arius was wrong. One of the things that he had going for him was that he took Scripture more "literally" than Athanasius did. He was fine with affirming Jesus as divine Son of God, more than humans and before the world existed; but he also took the Son terminology seriously and insisted that "there was a time when the Son was not." Athanasius and orthodoxy defended the co-eternality of Son and Father, but they did so with philosophical arguments rather than "Scripture alone." In fact, I don't think Scripture has a whole lot to say in any direct fashion about the eternal generation of the Son which orthodox Christians believe. So why did Athanasius triumph? Because the Church decided that his view was the best way to interpret the Scripture, even though it was not as "literal" as Arius and led to serious mysteries which Arius did not have. The Greek framework of Athanasius (and Gregory of Nyssa) beat out the Gnostic framework of Arius, even though his "made more Scriptural sense." So if you affirm the Athanasian position (and to be orthodox, you must) you have to realize that interpretive frameworks are essential in understanding Scripture; we can not do without them and would be in bad shape if we tried.
2. Jesus as Lord. To give a more modern interpretive example, take the statement: "Jesus is Lord (Romans 10.9)." What does that mean? Well, it depends on what framework you are using. The standard answer (?) is that Jesus is LORD in the Jewish God sense, or at least there is some claim to divinity and supremacy in this claim. Tom Wright however seem to think Paul was using it as a political polemic, as in "Jesus is Lord means Caesar is not!" My first inclination is to see it saying Jesus is Cosmic Lord as in providential control of the universe. Other people would see it as saying Jesus is Lord as ruler of my life choices. Which one is correct? Well, they all are! All of them are perfectly in line with Scriptural witness to Jesus and can fill out the meaning when Paul uses it. Did he have them all in his mind (or any of them?) when he wrote? Doubtful. Does that mean that I need to figure out what Paul thought in order to say I understand what "Jesus is Lord" means? Of course not! But I do need to realize that I understand it from within a particular framework, not in a vacuum. But we are doing this everytime we read and understand Scripture, so there is no problem.
Final Point: what I am saying here has almost nothing to to with the Roman Catholic discussion of Scripture vs. Tradition. The Protestant understanding of that is so muddled it would take a bunch of posts to get it clear! Everything I have been saying has kept only to the Scriptural principle echoed in the Reformation: sola Scriptura! There is no Scripture outside of interpretation, although some claim there is Tradition outside of Scripture (I am not so convinced, but enough for now). This has been a recent news event when Wheaton released their Medieval philosophy professor, Josh Hochschild, for converting to Roman Catholicism. Wheaton requires every faculty member to sign a statement of belief that includes sola Scriptura but when Dr. Hochschild signed it openly affirming the principle the college said he was not allowed to continue on. Wheaton is right in being able to release professors, but in this case the reason for release was his Roman Catholicism, not his inability to sign the statement! He could openly affirm sola Scriptura in the sense above because we all must if we understand what we do when we read Scripture.
So to sum up, this does not mean that God's word is falliable and that anything goes; it means that as Christians we trust God to enable his Church through the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture faithfully.
posted by Hans-Georg Gadamer @ 8:57 am
22 comments
22 Comments:
Great post, Hans. Well done with the Arian heresy and "Jesus is Lord" illustrations.
I wonder, though, about the following:
"Wheaton is right in being able to release professors, but in this case the reason for release was his Roman Catholicism, not his inability to sign the statement! He could openly affirm sola Scriptura in the sense above because we all must if we understand what we do when we read Scripture."
Can he REALLY affirm "sola scriptura"? My first reaction is to say clearly no. But then there's this:
"Everything I have been saying has kept only to the Scriptural principle echoed in the Reformation: sola Scriptura! There is no Scripture outside of interpretation..."
What do you mean by this? It sounds as though there is a causal relationship here. It sounds like you're saying that in effect the Church's interpretation is the guarantor of Scripture, as though certain texts are considered to be Scripture simply because they are the subject of the Church's interpretation. I think I am misunderstanding you, and I hope so. Do you mean to say that the Church is unable to interpret extra-Scriptural texts? Please clarify.
As for Professor Hochschild, "some claim there is Tradition outside of Scripture." They would be Roman Catholics. It's pretty clear that Rome's understanding of Tradition includes as a subheading the definition as a source of knowledge other than Scripture. Clearly different.
Unless Wheaton's Scripture clause was intended only as an affirmation of the inerrancy and the inspiration of Scripture, Hochschild couldn't sign it. The operative word is "only", which carries with it the understanding the subject of the Church's interpretation is limited to the texts of Scripture, and to stretch a bit, those sources whose ideas are consonant with the Scriptures so that you could say that they can be found in Scripture. By comparison, this is much more limiting that Rome's understanding of what's fair game for Magisterial interpretation.
Did you see the Wheaton article in April 2006's issue of First Things??
Also, I don't want to steer your discussion away from the original discussion. A trusted source for understanding Tradition as a source other than scripture would be Yves Congar, O.P. "The Meaning of Tradition"
Advent blessings!
Well, I don’t want to speak for Hans, but it seems to me the focus of the post was not Tradition so much as it was Scripture. I think Hans was merely saying that there can be no separation between “what Scripture says” and interpretation. Another way of putting it is that interpretation is always part of what Scripture says to/for us. So, at its base, sola Scriptura must include interpretation. As an Evangelical, personal interpretation is included in sola Scriptura; as a Roman Catholic, Tradition is included in sola Scriptura.
As for extra-Scriptural Tradition, I don’t think Wheaton is kicking out all of those Evangelicals who “receive a word” from the Holy Spirit while in prayer. Wheaton is obviously not interested in maintaining sola Scriptura for some commitment to orthodoxy, rather it is clearly intended to exclude Roman Catholicism.
Excellent post, Hans!
Your discussion reminds me of a passage by Augustine from his Confessions XII:
“Having listened to all these divergent opinions and weighed them, I do not wish to bandy words, for that serves no purpose except to ruin those who listen. The law is an excellent thing for building us up provided we use it lawfully, because its object is to promote the charity which springs from a pure heart, a good conscience and unfeigned faith, and I know what were the twin precepts on which our Master made the whole law and prophets depend. If I confess this with burning love, O my God, O secret light of my eyes, what does it matter to me that various interpretations of those words are proffered, as long as they are true? I repeat, what does it matter to me if what I think the author thought is different from what someone else thinks he thought? All of us, his readers, are doing our utmost to search out and understand the writer’s intention, and since we believe him to be truthful, we do not presume to interpret him as making any statement that we either know or suppose to be false. Provided, therefore, that each person tries to ascertain in the holy scriptures the meaning the author intended, what harm is there if a reader holds an opinion which you, the light of all truthful minds, show to be true, even though it is not what was intended by the author, who himself meant something true, but not exactly that?” (Augustine’s Confess. XII.27, pp. 327-328, M. Boulding translation).
Maria Boulding (the translator) adds the following note in regard to the passage above, “Augustine’s recognition that meanings other than those intended by the writer can legitimately be discovered in the sacred text is grounded in his conviction that the God of truth who inspired the writer and guarantees the text abides in the minds of believing readers, and that though God makes use of human words, they are never adequate to fully express his mystery; there is always a ‘plus’ of meaning” (p. 323, note 71).
Cheers,
Cynthia
Thanks for the responses everyone!
Josef - I think J. Morg did a good job of answering some of your question, but I will elaborate a little as well.
I think you are dealing with a different issue: I am saying that the Church (Magesterium for RC) is the guide to interpretation and is faithful in that intepretation. You are asking what the Church uses as a source for interpretation. That is a different question. It is not a long stem to say that the Church that interprets Scripture is also allowed to 'decide' Scripture, but that is not the point here. My argument is just to note that everyone needs an authoritative interpretator (Magesterium, 39 Articles, my radio preacher, etc.).
The Tradition question is another one which needs some thought, but I don't think it has anything linked necessarily with this one.
J. Morg - thanks for the clarification as well as the comment on Wheaton's anti-Catholic policy! What about those 'words from the Lord'?
Cynthia - great quote! Have we made any real progress in the Church since Augustine? I wonder.
Hans, I was just saying that most Evangelicals (particularly those that have something of a charismatic theology) believe that, on occasion, they or others “receive a word” from the Holy Spirit in prayer or praise (which, given the source, is presumably authoritative). Wheaton isn’t kicking them out, but they clearly don’t accept anything like sola Scriptura in the Reformation sense. So it is a certain kind of extra-Biblical authority that Wheaton is out to get while they are perfectly accommodating to others.
J. Morg - whoa! I was totally agreeing with you (as usual!)! "What about those words from the Lord?" was a comment made to any evangelicals wandering by! Sorry for the confusion, you knoew I am on the same page!
Hans and J. Morgan, thank you for he clarification.
I'm still have problems with this:
"There is no Scripture outside of interpretation, although some claim there is Tradition outside of Scripture..." and I think I figured it out.
By the first clause, you mean to say that all Scripture must be interpreted, yes? If I am understanding this correctly now, then I agree. What I found misleading was the second clause, which I thought rendered the whole sentence a discussion of sources.
What I read (and curiously in this sentence only) was a statement on the valid subjects of interpretation, when you were addressing the reality that all sources (though, in this case scripture alone) must be interpreted. Gotcha. Good.
And J. Morgan, by "as a Roman Catholic, Tradition is included in sola Scriptura," you meant that Tradition, whether or not it is a source outside Scripture, must also be interpreted. Gotcha. Good.
Hans...as for "everyone needs an authoritative interpretator," I completely agree, but I wonder:
"What does the authoritative interpreter look like?" Does the authority you speak of receive a special charism to be the guarantor of doctrinal orthodoxy? If this is the case, then it finally takes care of the need to acknowledge a systematic interpreter, especially since those who deny the existence of such a structural guarantor of orthodoxy still formulate doctrine and treat it as binding on the faithful, which is clearly inconsistent.
Other the other hand, is the indentification of an authoritative interpreter only able to fly so long as the body correctly interprets the Scriptures? I see this as problematic, because there's no way to invalidate the individual as the guarantor of a binding doctrinal orthodoxy, no?
So...what does the authentic interpreter look like? Do we recognize the structure because of orthodox teaching, which seems to negate the idea of authority? Or do we recognize orthodoxy because of its proposal by an authority, so that "what the (Magisterium) says goes"? (or 39 Articles or radio preacher)
Fascinating discussion. Not back to work.
And where does selective dissention fit? or obstinate dissention?
Josef - thanks for clarifying! I think you got everything straightened out.
If we trust the Holy Spirit to guide his Church, then I think we need an authoritative interpreter to guide us in Scripture's meaning. I think Protestantism lacks this authoritative interpreter by definition and is inconsistent just as you say. I am no longer a Protestant, this was established a while ago.
I am having this same battle over at Erik's blog (Priests and Paramedics http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18843816&postID=116496677559647345) where I am fighting the Protestant understanding of sola Scriptura. Without this interpreter though it is philosophically and historically untenable (their process simply does not make sense of the facts).
This leaves me in a very difficult situation. I think the authoritative interpreter is the Church, or specifically, the bishops in apostolic succession who are given authority to guard the truth of God. I think you agree with this. The final question becomes is whether the Roman bishops are the only ones in the line of succession or whether the Anglican ones might not also be there. If the Anglican bishops are not in succession (whatever that means) then the only True Church is Rome. If they are in succession then Anglicanism has a claim to apostolic authority which Protestantism does not.
The question hinges on Newman again, I think. Are we as Anglicans semi-Arians, or monophysites? Is there only One True visible Church? I think the answer is yes, but you can understand my trepidation. Thanks for the comments though, I am right with you, just haven't finished the logic yet!
Don't you think that the Anglican and Roman episcopacies have grown too far apart for a seamless restoration of Order without certain doctrinal reconciliations? I think so.
But I will also say that the Anglican hierarchical system lends itself quite nicely to visible unity. So the problem here is doctrinal dissention (my last question).
As an aside, I didn't join this conversation to press you to address your thoughts on conversion. My intention with my previous comments was actually to see whether or not you've come across any Protestant attempts to construct a Magisterium-like body. I haven't heard of one. No successful constructs without a concession that an objective structure turns out to be necessary, at least.
P.S. Happy St. Nicholas Day!! Don't forget to leave your shoes in the hallway!
“Don't you think that the Anglican and Roman episcopacies have grown too far apart for a seamless restoration of Order without certain doctrinal reconciliations? I think so.”
I think so, too. The difference, however, is our evaluation of that. I am all for Anglicans removing women and homosexual priest and bishops, returning the 1928 Prayer Book, reaffirming the importance of all the sacraments, renewing the exercise of episcopal authority, etc. However, I am also all for Roman Catholics acknowledging the value and necessity of the Reformation, canonizing Thomas Cranmer, and declaring John Calvin to be a Doctor of the Church. As panzerkardinal and I have discussed before, I’m not sure anyone can make a claim to being the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” until that takes place.
Until then, we are all hopelessly screwed.
Good luck with that, J. Morgan. Wishful thinking it seems, however eloquently stated.
I move for returning to the days when electing a bishop was a matter of public opinion and making J. Morgan bishop.
J. Morg - Excellent response! Here is my thought on it though:
1. The stuff you want done in the Anglican Church will never happen, no matter how much Peter Toon thinks it will.
2. Has Rome to some extent done what you ask in Vatican II and resourcement theology without naming names?
3. I think we are all screwed, and in the words of Heidegger "Only a God can save us." Praise be to Jesus for being that God!
Panzerkardinal,
You are right, of course. I know that my commitments aren’t anything like a real possibility. I do think, however, that they are true and the only real way forward. So, to reiterate: we are all hopefully screwed.
Hans,
1)I know it won’t. But not pushing for it on the grounds that it won’t happen will just lead to a lot of good Christian men and women being led astray and the complete destruction of English Christianity. I won’t abide by that, even to my own detriment.
2)In my mind, the naming of names is absolutely critical. A refusal to “name names” points to the very nature of the condition to which I object. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church would name names.
3)I am all for Jesus; I just want his Church look more like him on all fronts.
J. Morgan,
I could have been more sensitive, so I apologize for saying "good luck".
"But not pushing for it on the grounds that it won’t happen will just lead to a lot of good Christian men and women being led astray and the complete destruction of English Christianity."
This is absolutely right. I suppose I am in a comfortable position, since I feel that Rome is doing exactly what they should do regarding this issue. I know we disagree on this.
There are some issues, however, in which I sympathetically adopt your position. Those are mainly "in house" liturgical issues, though.
Hans...I think Rome has "named names" since the Council. The texts of the Council may have been vague and beating around the bush, but that's only because the implied meanings have to "sink in." And they have: take a look at the CDF's Dominus Iesus, on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church. If you're looking for actual naming like, "the Anglicans need to do this...or the Baptists need to do that," you won't find it in that language, of course. Section 16, however, hit the nail right on the head.
It was precisely because this document "named names" after the ambiguous language of the Council that reactions erupted from non-Roman crowds. It seems that such groups read the Conciliar texts overly-optimistically.
(I suppose that Rome could have avoided leading people on by not being so vague, but not really. Certain Conciliar documents as the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium were intended for "in house" application. In other words, non-Romans got too excited for new ecumenical possibilities before Rome had a chance to understand what the Council was really all about.)
Dominus Iesus is evidence that Rome has had the buffer time it needed after the Council. Take a look at section 16 in particular. Is it specific enough?
J. Morgan- What do we do with this false sense of optimism? I think that it's an unfortunate, unintentional, and (most importantly) inevitable slap in the face for Rome to take so long in clarifying its position. I think it's particularly interesting that John Paul II, who was so loved for his ability to reach out to all in a way that can't NOT be seen as an ecumenical front, was succeeded by Benedict, who actually draws lines. JP II asked for forgiveness and tried to heal the damages found throughout history, which was misunderstood to say that the Church's positions are being revised. Benedict, however, by naming names and articulating Church positions, is pushing people away.
Your thoughts?
If I can add my relatively uneducated thoughts to this discussion:
1. There is no scriptures outside of the Church.
2. Hence the church's interpretation has to be part of any definition of sola scriptura.
3. There is no position in the church which is not a tradition.
4. Hence there is no scripture outside of (a) tradition.
5. As somebody once said, the chap on the soapbox holding his bible, claiming sola scriptura from an individual basis has a problem. He actually, by definition, cannot claim the bible - he is all alone.
Then, regarding Benedict XVI - I don't regard his 'lines' as pushing away. He is an astute theologian with evident ecumenical concerns. Witness his visit to Patriarch Batholomew, and his talks with Williams. I think he is not willing to embrace based on fuzzy understandings. In this vein he should rather be seen as building further, though different, on the work of JPII.
Hi Hans,
Very thought provoking post, I look forward to continuing to read your thoughts. As it turns out, my comment on the post ended up being a bit too long for the box, so I put it up on my blog. Any more thoughts of yours would be appreciated, if you have a moment.
It's about time for your quarterly post. I'm thinking it should be something about religion, or maybe Transformers.
Joshua Hochschild called; he said he wants you to post something new, possibly about Transformers.
By the way, the reference for "further up and further in" is from Lewis' The Last Battle, and is Aslan's invitation to those who have made it through the stable into the new/renewed Narnia.
Have you given up on blogging and such pleasures?
"The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth." --Jesus
"When you seek for me, you will find me, when you seek me with all of your heart." --God
Post a Comment
<< Home