WESLEYAN FAITH SEEKING BIBLICAL
UNDERSTANDING
by
Frank Anthony Spina
Given the particular topics I propose to discuss in this
article, a title with the phrase "Wesleyan hermeneutic" in it might at first
glance have seemed appropriate. After all, when Wesleyans qua Wesleyans interpret the
Bible, is it not axiomatic that they employ, or should employ, a "Wesleyan
hermeneutic" While the answer to that question may appear obvious, I submit that the
issue is too complicated for a simple response. There are a number of reasons why this is
so.
For one thing, since in the strictest sense
"Wesleyan hermeneutic refers to the presuppositions and methods used by John Wesley
himself, only a bona tide scholar of Wesley could legitimately outline his approach.
However, not having studied Wesley's mode of biblical interpretation in detail, I have no
considered opinion regarding his interpretive strategy.
Second, and perhaps more important for present purposes.
"Wesleyan hermeneutic" implies an agreed upon method. But this belies the fact
that Wesleyan interpretive procedures are too varied to warrant such a singular
designation. There is no hermeneutic that underlies and unifies the work of Wesleyans
(Lyons 63; Langford 1984, 140: 1991, 236; Birch 127: (Outler 1991
["Primitivism"], 156; 1991 Quadrilateral"], 35). In fact I contend that
Wesleyans have appropriated a confusing and incoherent combination of pre-critical,
anti-critical, critical, and post-critical approaches. The rubric "Wesleyan" is
not sufficiently elastic to cover this diversity.
A third reason for shying away from the phrase
"Wesleyan hermeneutic" is that the theoretical grounds required to undergird
such a conception, at least as usually conceived, are inadequate. If there is something
that finally ought to be called a "Wesleyan hermeneutic," it requires a more
radical rethinking of the nature of Scripture and the context in which biblical
interpretation rightfully occurs.
Wesleyan Academic Training
This reluctance to embrace a so-called Wesleyan
hermeneutic is in part a function of the training I received at two Wesleyan institutions
and the dilemma with which this training left me.
In college most of my teachers carefully distinguished
themselves from Fundamentalism and Liberalism, typing themselves variously as
"conservative, ""evangelical," or "Wesleyan." They insisted
that they occupied the middle ground between the extremes of Fundamentalism and
Liberalism.1 Nonetheless, these teachers agreed in at least
one important sense with these two allegedly incompatible positions-they' also read the
Bible historically. For that reason, W. F. Albright and those who more or less followed
him were advocated as judicious if not infallible guides for understanding the Bible. We
students were taught that this way of treating the Bible avoided the extreme historical
nihilism characterized by the German higher critics on the left and the naive historical
positivism of American Fundamentalism on the right. An added benefit accrued in that there
was enormous respect for the scholarship of the "Baltimore School,"
identification with which placed one squarely in the intellectual mainstream. Another
bonus was that some Albrightians were credited with being sensitive to the church and
having a feel for biblical theology (e.g., Wright; Bright).
In seminary I studied with professors who were mostly in
tune with my college mentors. But others were not. Their positions were actually aligned
with what I had been taught was characteristic of Fundamentalism. Predictably, the
conflict between these two groups centered on the legitimacy of biblical criticism. At the
same time, for all their disagreement, the focus for both camps remained on history and
its import for biblical teaching. The main questions were: What did the Bible say had
happened?; What extra-biblical evidence corroborated or undercut the Bible's claims?; and,
What was the significance of the events recorded? Historical background and context were
never far from the discussion, Yet notwithstanding their position on these matters, all my
instructors unabashedly affirmed their Wesleyanism. This was troubling, for it meant that
one or the other was wrong in contending that Wesleyanism made a difference for biblical
studies. Worse this impasse suggested the possibility that Wesleyanism was completely
irrelevant to the respective stances.
My confusion was compounded when I tried to factor in
inductive Bible study, a method whose value for Wesleyan biblical interpretation was all
but taken for granted.2 It is not that I resisted this
approach; to the contrary. I appreciated it for taking the biblical text seriously on the
one hand and for being a guard against eisegesis on the other. Rather. my confusion was a
function of two problematic issues. One was the limits placed on induction. It appeared
that one was to study inductively only up to a point. A number of higher critical theories
arose precisely because of an inductive reading. But this was impermissible since the
theory of biblical authority that was often operative precluded what for all the world
seemed to be the text's plain meaning. I began to suspect that the inductive method, for
all its positives, was being used to deflect the very issues it sometimes brought to the
surface.
The second and more confusing problem turned on the fact
that the inductive method was not supposed to be geared to any theological tradition,
Wesleyan or otherwise. To the contrary, it was specifically designed to prevent the
interpreter's being influenced by a given theological tradition. As a matter of fact, we
were told over and over that this was a great strength of the inductive approach.3 But if that were the case, what was Wesleyan about it? And why was this approach
considered quintessential for Wesleyans? In my more cynical moments I mused that had
Mortimer Adler devised the method, his famous how-to book would have been entitled How To
Read a Book, Including The Bible. There was nothing the least bit theological about it. If
it was not theological, a fortiori it was not Wesleyan either. Granted, as an antidote to
scholastic and dogmatic treatments, the inductive method was a step in the right
direction. But its relationship to the Church and theology remained unresolved.
In sum, though grateful beyond words for the valuable
instruction my college and seminary professors provided. I cannot shake the impression
that they were ultimately confused about the nature and function of the Bible when
considered from a theological perspective. I believe that this confusion persists and has
had a corrosive effect on a Wesleyan treatment of the Bible particularly, and perhaps on
Wesleyanism generally. I turn now to show that the confusion to which I refer has by no
means disappeared.
Pre-Critical Interpretation
It virtually goes without saying that pre critical
biblical interpretation has been and continues to be practiced by many Wesleyans. Almost
certainly this is true in lay circles and a percentage of the clergy as well. It may seem
unfair even to mention laity and clergy in an academic forum except to point out that, if
pre-critical practices are widespread there is apparently little in the tradition that
militates against their use. To post the question more sharply, why is it that what
Wesleyan scholars teach and write has had such a negligible impact on how the Bible is
read. studied, taught, or preached in the church?
I should clarify that by "pre-critical" I do
not mean merely any method that antedates the rise of biblical criticism in the Western
intellectual tradition. Properly understood and qualified, we would do well to encourage a
revival of pie-critical interpretation, not so much in terms of exegetical conclusions as
in terms of the theological construals that were operative in many pre-critical ecclesial
communities (cf. Steinmetz). Rather, I have in mind a more pejorative nuance. Hartley
alludes to one sort of pre-criticism when he speaks of a "traditional approach' that
seeks "to indoctrinate through the exposition of . . . Scriptures." He probably
has in mind a variety of scholasticisms in which the Bible is searched for texts
supporting doctrinal positions that on other than strictly' biblical grounds have already
been adjudged as orthodox. This is to be contrasted to historical criticism and the
inductive method, both of which were supposed to challenge the circular reasoning thought
to be endemic in a scholastic approach (Hartley, 58: Munn. 78; Langford 1991, 235).
There are other kinds of pre-criticism evident in the
church Moralistic readings, in which biblical characters are presented as "plastic
saints abound.4 Another pre-critical construal regards the Bible as a seamless garment
whereby any text can be used as the interpretive key for other without showing through
careful textual analysis that the texts were designed to be read in light of each other.
Yet another kind of pre-criticism engages in a naive supernaturalism, at the same time
failing to consider the theological denotation of some miracle accounts and naturalizing
others by relegating them to ordinary phenomena in which the timing was just right (e.g.,
Hartley, 61).
This is only an illustrative list. Whether Wesleyan
scholars participate in such endeavors in significant numbers is hard to know. But that is
beside the point. The larger issue is why what we do as scholars has had such minimal
impact on the church's use of the Bible. Why do pre-critical approaches continue to
survive if not thrive given the putative efforts of Wesleyan scholars to foster a
different interpretive climate? By posing this question I do not mean to lay all the blame
for hermeneutical confusion on laity and clergy. The latter has correctly intuited that a
great deal of work performed by Wesleyan biblical scholars, for all its erudition, is
hardly indispensable to the church's mission.
Anti-Critical and Critical Approaches
Whereas pre-critical exegetical practices in the
tradition are ascertained mostly by anecdotal and impressionistic forms of evidence, the
presence of anti-critical approaches is much easier to document. In point of fact, it is
all but impossible to discuss critical practices in Wesleyan circles without at the same
time discussing anti-critical perspectives. Any-one familiar with the history of the
Wesleyan Theological Society will have no difficulty recalling its version of the
"battle for the Bible." The sides in this dispute are readily recognizable.
Anti-critical Wesleyans ten to view most of the results and many of the methods of
historical criticism as not only wrong but antithetical to an orthodox conception of
Scripture. Conversely, critical Wesleyan scholars are prone to view man of the results and
most of the methods of historical criticism as at least plausible if not
"assured" and, correctly understood, fully compatible wit; an orthodox
conception of Scripture. This is nothing less than the Fundamentalist-Modernist
controversy, Wesleyan style.
To be sure, a great many Wesleyan scholars have
protested vociferously that their theological heritage cannot be explained in terms of
this confrontation (e.g., McCown 1992, 148. 158). Given the contours of Wesleyan theology,
taking into account not only Wesley's own theological impulses but Pietism and the
American Holiness Movement as well, the burden of proof is surely on those who would
characterize Wesleyanism as a sub-set of Fundamentalism (Spina 1991). Nevertheless, in
actual practice Wesleyans have participated in this acrimonious debate to a far greater
degree than one would have thought possible given their frequent protestations that they
were "above or beyond the battle."5 Wesleyans are far more likely to
distinguish themselves from Fundamentalism on the issue of their ostensive doctrinal
distinctive, sanctification, than on any perceived differences in a doctrine of Scripture.
Rather than amassing quotes from discrete essays and
books to make my point, I call attention to two recent books. They show that there has
been for a long time a Wesleyan version of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. The
first is The Wesley Bible KTWB], edited by A. F. Harper and published in 1990. It is an
annotated study Bible using the text of the New King James Version. The second book is the
Asbury Bible Commentary [=ABC], edited by B. E. Carpenter and W. McCown and published
in1992. It is a one-volume commentary on the whole Bible using the text of the New
International Version. Regardless of their different purposes, these two books afford an
excellent glimpse into Wesleyan biblical scholarship since they were commissioned to be
written by Wesleyans fly Wesleyans from a distinctively Wesleyan perspective. Furthermore,
the number of scholars participating in these two projects insures a wide sampling of the
best in Wesleyan biblical scholarship today.
TWB's theological orientation is clearly stated in the
preface: In faithfulness to God and to our readers, it was deemed appropriate that all
participating scholars sign a statement affirming their belief in the verbal and plenary
inspiration of Scripture, and in the inerrancy of the original autographs" (TWB,
xiii). William Cannon put forth the position of the ABC: "The purpose of the Bible is
simply to present God's plan of salvation, and those who wrote it were inspired by the
Holy Spirit to convey to humankind the story of redemption, and in this regard [italics
mine] their work is perfect and without fault or blemish" (ABC, 18).
Cannon clarifies his position by explicitly rejecting
inerrancy and verbal inspiration; "Rather than speak of the inerrancy of Scripture or
verbal inspiration, it is much better to speak of the indefectibility of the Bible or its
infallibility, the breathing of the Holy Spirit on its authors to assure their accuracy in
presenting Gods plan of salvation [italics mine] in its perfection" (ABC, 18).
In short, TWB contains a statement indistinguishable from a bona fide Fundamentalist
position, whereas the ABC high lights the Bible's salvific purpose. The latter accords
with the array of "sufficiency" statements found in many Wesleyan communions,
Parenthetically, there is a consistency in TWB not shared by ABC, since the scholars
contributing to the former had to agree to its confession on Scripture whereas the
scholars contributing to the latter were, to the best of my knowledge, not even told about
its position on Scripture until it appeared.6
Unfortunately, comparing these two works detail for
detail is difficult since some scholars wrote for both volumes. Thus, some contributors to
TWB were also invited to participate in the ABC project. But reciprocity was precluded
because TWB was ostensibly' limited to scholars willing to sign an inerrancy statement.
Yet, this circumstance should occasion little surprise. As long as I have been in Wesleyan
circles there has been an assumption that the inerrancy folk represent the conservative
wing, whereas those refusing to espouse inerrancy evince a liberalizing impulse. Be that
as it may, suffice it to say that after accounting for the difficulty created by this
overlap, a comparison of the major textual cruces shows that authors of TWB in the main
adopt exegetical conclusions compatible with an inerrancy paradigm whereas authors of the
ABC in the main entertain at least moderately critical conclusions.
Without doubt the scholars I have placed in the
Fundamentalist camp, as well as those I have in effect placed on the "left,"
will vigorously contest my categorization. Those who espouse criticism not only resist
being labeled liberals, but insist in addition that their mostly moderate criticism and
accompanying high view of Scripture situates them not only to the left of Fundamentalism
but far to the right of Liberalism as well.7 These scholars tend to see
themselves as "Evangelicals" occupying the middle of the road (Hartley, 62;
Thorsen, 41).
Those I have labeled Fundamentalists likewise will be
unhappy. Fundamentalism is currently viewed in almost exclusively negative terms. It is
perceived as obscurantist, rigidly narrow, anti-intellectual, arrogant, and literalistic.
Accordingly, Fundamentalism is no longer primarily a theological rubric but a
psychological one. Understandably, virtually all who once were pleased if not proud to
call themselves "Fundamentalists" have opted for "Evangelical."
However, in spite of this semantic shift, historically Fundamentalism was an identifiable
ecclesiastical movement with its own rationale and integrity. It has not been helpful to
treat it as a personality disorder! Wesleyans who happen to agree with Fundamentalists
regarding Scripture may, of course, call themselves whatever they like. But, in point of
fact, Wesleyans who accept the inerrancy paradigm do not differ meaningfully from classic
Fundamentalism or most contemporary Evangelicalism on the doctrine of Scripture.
Relative to the inerrancy debate among Wesleyans, I aver
that it is not particularly germane where John Wesley stood. Those holding to inerrancy
have little trouble citing statements Wesley made that would appear to place him squarely
on their side. Likewise, those believing that inerrancy cannot be squared with Wesley
argue that he used the critical methods available to him and generally treated Scripture
more flexibly than an inerrancy position reasonably permits (Scroggs, 415-17; McCown 1983,
752-53; Langford 1984, 140-43).
More to the point, nothing that Wesley believed changes
the tact that in terms of intellectual history he was not reacting to modernity.
But Liberalism and Fundamentalism are largely inexplicable except as reactions to
modernity (Mickey 111-12). Some in the Christian world were firmly convinced that
modernity had to be squarely faced. Philosophy, science, and historiography were trading
in truth-claims, the denial of which was adjudged to be hopelessly uninformed and
backward. There was no choice but to accommodate Christianity to modern ways of thinking.
Otherwise, the faith would become little more than a relic of a superstitious,
indefensible, and credulous past. Christian religion would become unpalatable to an
increasingly educated and sophisticated world if it did not make peace with modern
epistemic claims. This is the liberal theological impulse.
Others were equally adamant that a Christian faith
exposed to the onslaughts of modernity would be profoundly and irreparably damaged. Many
modem ideas were inimical to the gospel and had to be steadfastly resisted, especially
those having to do with epistemology. To combat modernity's insidious encroachments, a
barrier thought to be impregnable was erected, the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture.
The conviction obtained that any weakening of this line of defense would eventuate
inevitably in defeat. This is the fundamentalistic theological impulse.
Arguably, both of these responses to modernity were to
an extent justified. Fundamentalism has not been given sufficient credit for insisting
that many features of modern thinking are corrosive to a pervasively Christian account of
reality. Unfortunately, its analysis was better than its solution. Perhaps more damning to
inerrancy than any number of specific and well-known objections is that it ultimately is
based on a form of rationalism and historical positivism that is a product of the very
modernity allegedly being rejected.
For its part, Liberalism appropriately summoned the
church to come to terms with modernity. The latter's achievements were too impressive to
ignore. Modernity was not about to go away. Liberalism should be affirmed for trying to
rethink Christian faith in ways that took modernity seriously. At the same time,
Liberalism could not have underestimated more the extent of modernity's threat. Modest
revision was one thing, wholesale capitulation if not unconditional surrender was quite
another. I hasten to add that those I have typed as moderately critical Wesleyans are not
Liberals in this sense. Notwithstanding, it is permissible to ask whether the self-styled
"moderates" have thought carefully enough about the theological underpinnings of
the critical task in which they engage. Merely rejecting naturalistic assumptions may
still underestimate the crucial theological issues involved in the acceptance of the
critical agenda.
In any case, none of this affects the fact that it would
be completely anachronistic to explain Wesley's thought primarily as a reaction to
modernity. Wesley was not the only pre-modem Christian theologian who made incidental
statements that appear to support an inerrancy paradigm. But the more penetrating question
is whether inerrancy as a reaction to modernity and as an orienting principle
is compatible with Wesley’s general theological method or his exegesis.
I am convinced that neither the inerrancy paradigm nor
the moderately critical paradigm is explicable apart from modernity (Hauerwas 35). If this
is true, then in what meaningful sense can either of these approaches be made compatible
with Wesleyanism?
Post-Critical Approaches
Perhaps because of implicit disillusionment with the
methods just outlined, or simply because of the lure of contemporary intellectual trends,
many Wesleyans have gone "beyond" to one or another of the so-called
post-modernist positions. It is difficult to ascertain whether post-modernism is primarily
a reaction to the hegemony of modernity’s epistemological claims, a substitution of
subjectivity for modernity s vaunted objectivity, or a celebration of a glorious
relativism in which we cannot be sure why we believe what we believe, but we are
gloriously happy, confident and even smug believing it! Then again, post-modernity may be
nothing more than the muddled Zeitgeist that follows modernity (Stanley 23-43).
John Stanley argues that various post-modem approaches
to Scripture are compatible with what he calls a "holiness hermeneutic." For
him, this eventuates in the following hermeneutical posture: (1) the interpreter accepts
the presuppositions of faith over against scientific detachment; (2) the interpreter is
eclectic, employing whatever critical or post-critical methods are required; (3) the
interpreter values intertextuality and the allusive nature of the biblical text; (4) the
interpreter is open to the Spirit's role in interpretation, not only with the ancient
author but with the contemporary interpreter and the community receiving the
interpretation; and (5) the interpreter is uneasy with dominant cultural paradigms
(Stanley 28-37). In addition, Stanley cites appreciatively the efforts of other Wesleyan
scholars who have gone beyond the historical paradigm not only by exploring the
relationship between a "holiness hermeneutic" and historical criticism, but also
by adopting newer methods, including, for example, canonical criticism, rhetorical
criticism, and sociological analysis (Stanley 31, 41, fnn. 38-39). To these may perhaps be
added the so-called "liberation hermeneutics" involving gender, race,
socio-political disenfranchisement, and economic marginalization.
Though precise definitions remain elusive, there are now
a number of self- styled post-modern hermeneutical approaches. Wesleyans, no less than
anyone else, are counted among the variety of post-modernist practitioners. Indeed,
according to Stanley, there has been a natural progression, a veritable evolution, which
may be traced on a continuum proceeding from critical to post-critical methods, that is,
from modernity to post-modernity. Carpenter makes a similar point: "Currently, a
multifacted and interdisciplinary approach is being developed. Anthropology, sociology,
psychology, poetics, and linguistics, in addition to various new perspectives such as
feminist, Third World (liberation) viewpoints are offering helpful insights to mine the
riches of these ancient revelational documents" (Carpenter 135).
This tends to confirm my thesis. Given in Wesleyan
circles at least a residue of pre-critical treatment of the Bible, the considerable
strength of anti-criticism that remains, the practices of critical moderates, and the
growing number of post-modern approaches, there is no denying that within Wesleyanism an
array of hermeneutical methods persists. It is possible to discover Wesleyans virtually
anywhere along a continuum stretching from pre-modernity (i.e.. pre-critical) to
post-modernity (i.e. post-critical).
In this light, the nagging question presents itself: How
can hermenentical diversity of this magnitude be said to derive legitimately from Wesleyan
theological sources or impulses? Since many of these approaches assume radically different
epistemological stances, not to mention incompatible if not mutually exclusive construals
of the nature and function of Scripture - some of them rejecting the category
"Scripture at the out-set - is it not naive to think that any and all of these
approaches can be employed simply depending on what the individual interpreter decides is
best for his or her circumstance? There is no question that the Bible max legitimately be
studied from any number of perspectives: as ancient literature, as a potential source for
historical reconstruction, as a cultural artifact, as political propaganda, as data for
observing the development of language. as expressive of differing ideologies, etc. But
none of these require a self-conscious acceptance of the Bible as "Scripture, which
is a theological category.
Whatever else it means to be Wesleyan, or to approach
Scripture as a Wesleyan, it cannot mean something besides a theological approach. Wesleyan
theology, as a theology, is not sufficiently eclectic or catholic that "one
size fits all." Approaches to the Bible which ignore or undercut the basic premises
requisite to a full-orbed theological understanding of Scripture cannot be appealed to as
though those premises are irrelevant to the hermeneutical task. It is difficult to avoid
the impression that what is often referred to as a "Wesleyan hermeneutic" is
little more that the adoption of a particular interpretive technique by scholars who
consider themselves "Wesleyan" on grounds having nothing to do with the
hermeneutic in question. Has sufficient effort been exerted to determine first the inner
coherence of the Wesleyan theological dynamic and second whether the technique being
employed is finally compatible with the aforementioned dynamic? Unless this question is
taken seriously, I fear that the prevailing confusion in Wesleyan circles will remain.
Wesleyan Hermeneutical Eclecticism
This is not to deny that there are a number of
interpretive methods which have afforded excellent insights into the biblical text. Seen
from one perspective, it would be folly to maintain that there is a univocal hermeneutic
available which Wesleyans qua Wesleyans must embrace. In that sense, there emphatically is
no Wesleyan hermeneutic." At the same time, accepting a measure of hermeneutical
eclecticism or taking a position between perceived hermeneutical poles still leaves
certain fundamental issues unresolved. It makes a great deal of difference whether one is
working at the level of "details" that are ascertainable on the
"surface" of the text or whether one is working at a more "structural"
level to read the text as Scripture. The question is whether it matters that the text is
"structurally" (i.e., by virtue of the church's theological claim) Scripture
rather than something else. Accepting the Bible as "Scripture" requires a
different reading.
Consider, for example, the matter of the Bible's
essential subject matter, something about which I find almost no discussion among
Wesleyans. Critical scholars and anti-critical scholars alike assume that the Bibles
subject matter is history. The referent of the text is something that happened in space
and time. On this view, what is authoritative is a series of events "behind" the
text whose insignificance and import one must infer. It is at this point that there is no
compelling difference between Fundamentalism and Liberalism. They are both oriented to
Enlightenment historiography. To be sure, one is predisposed to regard every biblical
narrative as more or less straightforward historical reporting largely corroborated by the
archaeological record (see Wiley 206: TWB 1953-1960, 1980-2000), whereas the other is
committed to treat the text as only one potential source of historical information. But
regardless of whether the Bible is conceived to be maximally or minimally a historical
chronicle, its subject matter remains history.
At the other end of the spectrum, post-modernists have
abandoned the security promised by irrefragable rules of historical evidence. One result
is that the text is seen as a hermetically sealed fictive world the mythic value of which
the reader is invited to contemplate. There is an enormous attraction to this and other
new literary approaches because of the startling and delightful discovery that biblical
literature is exquisitely artful, sophisticated, and imaginative (see Alter; Alter and
Kermode; Steinberg). I value these literary studies, for they attend to the intricacies of
the text and uncover interpretive possibilities that were not even imagined until
recently. Nonetheless, it is highly doubtful that appreciating the Bible's literary
dimension takes seriously enough the fact that in theological terms the Bible is more than
a literary classic and must be read first and foremost as the church's Scripture. There is
no question that the Bible is literature. But that is not the same as saying that reading
it as literature is tantamount to reading it as Scripture.
Then again, some incline toward the Bible's
"preferential options" - for the poor, women, minorities, the politically
marginalized - and interpret the text as an ideological expression which alternately
advances or retards the agenda of the preferred group. Without a doubt, it is foolhardy to
ignore one's social location when engaged in interpretation. We have to strive mightily
not to read our own cultural biases into a text. We have to be willing to let the text
challenge whatever our privileged status happens to be and call it ultimately into
question. Using the lens of this or that preferential option is to that extent justified.
Yet, regardless of how worthy a preferred group happens to be. no group's social location
can be the primary context for interpretation. If it is only ideology remains and the
Bible becomes a battleground for "interest group hermeneutics". Surely something
more theologically apposite is necessary.
Equally, there is much to be said for canonical
criticism as pioneered by James Sanders. His understanding of the way sacred traditions
function in a religious community, the dynamics of textual resignification, and the vital
process of biblical intertextuality deserve a wide hearing. But in the final analysis I
question whether the Sanders proposal is based on a theological construal that finally
takes Scripture seriously as Scripture. In my view, Sanders views the work of the
contemporary interpreter as parallel to rather than derivative of Scripture (Spina
1992, 75-78). The primary purpose of Scripture for him is to provide a paradigm for
appropriating contemporary religious traditions. This grounds Scripture in an anthropology
wherein the community s self-identity is paramount rather than in a theology wherein
God’s initiatives and claims on the community of faith are paramount.
Unresolved Issues
In sum, there is no reason why Wesleyans may not benefit
substantially from the many hermeneutical options currently available. The academy has
provided an impressive number of tools which biblical scholars can apply to the
interpretive task. However, the academy is singularly unsuitable as the starting point for
interpreting the Bible as Scripture. Proper interpretation of the Bible as Scripture must
be grounded in the church of Jesus Christ. Ours is a theological and spiritual task. As
historians, literary critics, linguists, form critics, or whatever, we may offer to the
church a plethora of helpful insights for understanding the Bible. But interpretation that
is a function of Christ’s church must have a theological basis that transcends,
informs, and transforms academic training and academic location. More decisive than any
other qualifying adjective. we are first and foremost ecclesial interpreters. In the
history of the Wesleyan Theological Society, there have been perhaps three related but
separate emphases regarding Wesleyanism and the Bible. One was the debate centering on
whether inerrancy or some other paradigm was appropriate to a Wesleyan construal of the
nature and function of Scripture. A second involved the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the
critical method of biblical study. A third has featured the issue of hermeneutics: How is
Scripture rightly to be interpreted?
As important as these discussions have been, and to some
extent continue to be, I submit that they have not been sufficiently comprehensive or
penetrating regarding the role of the Bible in the life of the church. At the very least.
I suggest that discussing the following topics would turn our conversations in a more
productive direction. These are not listed in the order of importance, nor are they by any
means exhaustive.
Possible New Directions
First, it is imperative to revisit what Scripture"
as a doctrinal conception signifies. For all the ink that has been spilled on the
nature and function of Scripture, I am not convinced that we even mean the same thing when
we say "Scripture." It is on this point that I find the work of Brevard Childs
so discerning. Unfortunately, collapsing the work of Childs and Sanders into a discipline
called canonical criticism - a misconstrual of which I have been guilty - has distorted
some crucial issues (Spina 1982; cf. 1992).
More important than any individual exegetical treatment
or critical assessment, it is how Childs conceives of Scripture theologically that
most merits consideration. For him, the biblical canon is neither a divinely superintended
recording of history whose theological import we are to infer nor an arbitrary
"freezing" of the community of faiths sacred traditions which furnishes
guidelines for actualizing our own traditions. Rather, from the beginning of the
traditioning process right up to the final stages of canonization, a profoundly
theological and hermeneutical process was in operation. Since the traditions were received
as religiously authoritative, they were transmitted with a view toward maintaining a
normative function for subsequent generations. This "canon-conscious-ness" is
integral to the formation of the literature and is not obviated by the presence of so many
different compositional techniques (Childs 70-71). This does not mean that ancient Israel
"had" a canon, which clam would be historically naive and completely
anachronistic. But it suggests that Israel's tradents were conscious of canon in the sense
that from beginning to end they reacted to Gods revelatory actions by generating editing,
and appropriately modifying written traditions, all with the purpose of transmitting an
authoritative and indispensable witness to all subsequent generations of the faithful.
This is why the Bible's orientation is substantially
theological: that is, its very raison d'etre is to witness to its subject matter:
divine revelation. Such a witness is of necessity theological. Thus, continuing to see
theology as only one element in Scripture rather than its essence constitutes a failure to
comprehend the nature of Scripture. For example, as long as we view biblical books like
Samuel and Kings as more or less historical in thrust and books like St. Paul's Epistle to
the Romans as more or less theological in thrust, we have badly misconstrued the nature
and function of Scripture.8 The common criticism that the Bible does not "do"
theology the way theologians execute their task is not cogent. since it is the formal
impulse of Scripture that is theological rather than its material modes of expression
(contra Lyons 67). In my view, understanding Scripture along these lines has the potential
of revolutionizing and energizing preaching, emphasizing the importance of regular and
systematic Bible reading in worship, changing the focus of biblical instruction in
colleges, universities, and seminaries, and reclaiming a more central role for the Bible
in the common life of the church.
More needs to be said about the proposal that Scripture
is primarily a witness to divine activity or revelation. That is, the referent of the text
is not history per se, a fictive literary world, religious ideas, legitimations of this or
that ideology, or timeless propositions and aphorisms. Instead, the referent of the text,
its essential subject matter, is nothing less than God and God's revelatory interactions
with and communications to the receptor community. This is why the church not only seeks
to pursue the nature of the one divine reality among the various biblical voices, but also
wrestles theologically with the relation between the reality testified to in the Bible and
the living reality known and experienced as the exalted Christ in the present (Childs 86).
One of the reasons so many pre-critical interpreters deserve our attention is that they
tended to see Scripture along these lines. An example of the rupture that occurs when
Scriptures function as witness is misconstrued is the absurdity, expressed in the Scofield
Reference Bible, that a text can be inspired, true, inerrant, and irrelevant! How can a
witness to divine activity ever he considered irrelevant'?
This by no means suggests that the biblical text should
be "flattened" as a set of statements which are individually authoritative as
witnesses to God's revelation in Israel and in Christ. It is the Scripture as a whole
that constitutes the witness; no single part can ever be considered apart from that whole.
This is why the very notion of canon as a theological conception is more important
than the idea of canon in historical terms. It is by attending to the scope of the whole
canon that we begin to see how the canonizers built into the text a variety of means for
how one part of Scripture should be read in the light of another part, or how relative
values might he assigned to different sections. Our task is not to "make" the
Scriptures relevant to the church today. hut to ascertain the theological relevancy that
has been deeply embedded in its text by the tradents of the community of faith who
witnessed to God's revelatory actions. None of this is vitiated by the
"raggedness" of the canon or the canonical process. Perfection is not the goal;
sufficiency is.
Likewise, understanding Scripture in these terms
requires a concomitant reappraisal of historical and critical methods. These methods,
limited as they are for getting at the theological substance of Scripture, are
nevertheless indispensable for revealing the contours of the canonical witness. The
primary function of critical methods should not be to reconstruct biblical history in ways
amenable to modem historiography or to establish an ostensibly pristine pre-canonical
text. Rather, critical methods should be used to ascertain how the community expressed in
the canon its historical witness to God's self-disclosure in Israel and Christ. I have
never been more persuaded that many of the goals and conclusions of historical criticism
are dead wrong. This has sometimes been due to failures of criticism's own inner logic and
sometimes because the questions it asks of Scripture are of no or little interest to the
content and intention of Scripture as theologically conceived. At the same time, I have
never been more persuaded that we must be free to apply the full range of critical methods
to the canonical witness. If the goal is reading the Bible as Scripture, there is
nothing to fear and everything to be gained from a properly critical reading. Thus, we
need more historical critical investigation, not less. But it must be put to the service
of ends other than those that have been dominant among the critics for so many decades.
We do well to heed Karl Barth's admonition that the
critics were not critical enough. Barth believed that the critics were naive in failing to
recognize the gap between the "historical sense" and the meaning imbedded in the
text as the result of revelation. No human method or effort could get at the latter.
Understood theologically, divine revelation can only be apprehended with divine assistance
(prevenient grace!). The fact is, it is quite impossible to separate culturally
conditioned human words in the Bible from God's word. All of the Bible is culturally
conditioned; none of it is immune to the effects of having been written and transmitted by
human beings, For Barth, this impasse could be bridged only by the analogy of faith, which
is nothing more or less than correspondence between an act of God and an act of a human
subject. The act from God's side is self-disclosure; from the human side it is faith in
that self-disclosure. God must make the human understanding conform to the divine
utterance (McCormack 325-332). The fear that critical methods will uncover a human Bible
is ill-founded. There is no question that the Bible is human, but God is able by grace to
speak through that human vessel in a way that suffices to make us wise unto salvation.
Seen from this perspective, criticism is our ally rather than our foe.
Equally, Wesleyan biblical interpretation, no
less than Christian biblical interpretation, must be securely grounded in the
historic and present Church. While this sounds platitudinous if not tautological, it is a
crucial matter whether we operate as autonomous individual interpreters who grant
privileged status to an alleged objective or scientific perspective whether we function
primarily as "doctors of the church." As its "doctors," the church's
rule of faith is the presupposition of our work. Quintessential Protestant principles such
as Sola Scriprura, the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, or the priesthood of
all believers, are vitiated if they are invoked to support private or secular renderings
of Scripture (McCormack 336; Hauerwas 27). To be sure, it hardly improves matters to
counter individualistic interpretation with dogmatic, obscurantist, or naïve appeals to
some implicit Protestant version of the magisterium. At the same time, the Church is in
the end the final arbiter of how Scripture is read and interpreted. Thus, the Church will
always be in a dialectical relationship with its canon, simultaneously confessing that its
rule of faith derives from the biblical witness and that its rule of faith may be
corrected, made more apposite or given more careful nuances by that same biblical witness.
This dialectical activity is. of course, carried out under the tutelage of the Holy
Spirit.
This is a problem of such complexity that our very best
efforts toward a solution doubtless fall short. Still, directing our energies to this
problem would, I believe, contribute considerably more to the vitality of Wesleyan thought
than many of the issues that have occupied us heretofore, especially since we emphasize so
readily the importance that ecclesiastical tradition had for Wesley. Unfortunately,
Wesley's historic emphasis has been rendered ineffectual in light of the fact that no
substantive attempt is made any longer to acquaint exegetes with the church's interpretive
tradition. Several generations of Wesleyan interpreters have been trained without any
meaningful exposure to the church's vital history of interpretation. What does it reveal
about us that in many of our seminaries students may study a variety of ancient Near
Eastern languages to get at the "historical background" of the Bible, while the
languages that would give us access to the church's exegetical tradition are virtually
ignored? I would even go so far as to suggest that acquaintance with the rabbinical
interpretative traditions would have a salutary effect on Old Testament exegesis. Be that
as it may, how can we continually laud Wesley's respect for and appeal to church tradition
given the fact that our own commitments to that same tradition have become so anemic?
There are perhaps two aspects to recovering a robust
view of the church's interpretive tradition in our exegetical endeavors. One involves
attending to the history of interpretation for heuristic reasons. Being aware of the
methods used or directions taken by biblical interpreters in various eras of the church is
extremely valuable, It is possible to be informed by these earlier efforts without being
blind to whatever mistakes or excesses obtained. Even egregious interpretations may have
some positive value in that they underscore the church's struggle to make sense of texts
whose "plain" meanings appeared hopelessly irrelevant.
For the most part, the church has tried to hear God
speak in the biblical texts. The difficulty of hearing a divine utterance through many
texts led to some of the elaborate methods to "get behind" the text to a moral,
religious, or theological sense. Rather than dismissing these efforts as nothing more than
pre-modern ineptitude or prejudice, it might be more instructive to sympathize with the
problems confronting interpreters operating in differing periods of church history. Just
as a knowledge of the church's deliberations that eventuated in the ecumenical creeds
enables one to comprehend more adequately the actual theological issues that were at
stake, so a comparable awareness of the debates over Scriptures meaning throughout the
life of the church should be seen as beneficial if not requisite.
A second aspect involves awareness of the fact that the
church's interpretive tradition cannot be reduced merely to the aggregate of comments made
by any and all individuals who happened to engage in biblical interpretation sometime in
the life of the church. Just as there is a theological tradition in the church with an
upper case -T- and a lower case -t-, so there is Tradition and tradition in
the interpretive realm. The Church's interpretive tradition is no less selective than its
theological tradition.
According to Mark Burrows, the medieval theologian Jean
Gerson tried to develop an "ecclesial hermeneutic" in which two features were
paramount. One was the holiness of the interpreter; that is, the exegete had to be
completely caught up in the spiritual, moral, and sacramental life of the church. Valid
interpretation could not be detached in and ways from spiritual disciplines and church
life. Thus, instead of viewing commitment to the church as a bias impeding proper
interpretation - as "modern" epistemology in its inception had it - it is
precisely this predilection toward the church and its rule of faith that fosters proper
interpretation.
A second feature of Gerson's program took seriously the
realization that the church's interpretive tradition was indeed selective. For the most
part the church had indicated, at least informally, which interpretations and which
interpreters were broadly sanctioned. This was not to transform any particular interpreter
or interpretive tradition into a magisterium. Rather, it was an attempt on the
church’s part to distinguish between exegetical approaches that were viewed as
broadly compatible with the rule of faith or orthodoxy and exegetical approaches which
were viewed as broadly incompatible with the rule of faith or orthodoxy (Burrows 152-172).
The ecclesiastically oriented interpreter begins the task informed by and committed to
that interpretive tradition which the church has adopted as its own. Because part of the
church's rule of faith is that Scripture is the source of its faith and life, the
interpreter need not be in bondage to the tradition. Otherwise, Scripture's voice would be
effectively silenced.
But it is possible to take the tradition seriously, to
be informed by it. and even to be committed passionately to it, without merely finding in
Scripture what one set out to find in the first place. Should not Wesleyans be supportive
of an exegetical task in which the church's interpretive traditions are viewed as
guideposts rather than roadblocks? However this question is answered, the necessity of
asking it seems to me to be beyond dispute.
Finally, as Wesleyans who are "seeking
understanding" in the biblical witness, we need to re-evaluate the great gulf we have
placed between "biblical theology" and "systematic theology." To be
sure, these are separate disciplines, requiring different training and the application of
different skills. But it is a major error to regard biblical theology principally as a
descriptive task and systematic theology' as a constructive one. It is not the job of
biblical theologians to amass "facts" which may the!] be used K by
systematicians. Biblical theology that is carried out in the service of the church must be
thoroughly informed by theology. Likewise, systematic theology that is carried out in the
service of the church must be thoroughly informed by the biblical witness. How could it be
otherwise? Biblical theologians approach the Bible in the first place because of the
church's confession telative to the nature and function of Scripture. As biblical
theologians engage in the exegetical and expository task, they should never lose sight of
the church's rule of faith.
The goal is to ascertain, assess, and proclaim the
text's witness to divine revelation. That witness is subsequently brought to bear on the
church's theological positions. Nothing could be more ecclesiastically oriented or
theological than that! To put the issue more sharply, it is a fair question to ask whether
biblical theologians who do not regularly read systematic theology or who remain
relatively uninformed about the church's belief system can in fact do their job well. Our
goal ought not to be discerning some illusive "Wesleyan hermeneutic." Rather, our
goal ought to be entering the biblical world fully equipped as Wesleyan
theologians.
Similarly, systematicians must have more than an
elementary acquaintance with the biblical witness. Biblical cadences and impulses need to
permeate the work of constructive theology. The Bible should be "second nature"
to the theologian. Systematic theology is after all a function of the church. That church
confesses the Bible to be an indispensable, authoritative, and sufficient source for its
faith and life. It is arguable whether any theological work that is not saturated with
biblical lore or at least fraught with biblical background deserves the designation "Christian."
If that is true of Christian theology generally, it a fortiori is a given for Wesleyan
theology.
Because of the inordinate influence of the academy, the
theological disciplines have become specialized to the extent that intramural conversation
is almost impossible. That is a most unfortunate situation for an educational enterprise
which seeks to be coherent and integrated. But for theological education, whether that
occurs in the Christian university, seminary, or the Church, such a situation is
deplorable and ultimately self-defeating. Anecdotes abound about the fact that in many
seminaries biblical studies, systematic theology, and homiletics have virtually nothing to
do with one another. This is because the church, for all the rhetoric to the contrary, has
not set the agenda. If this is not turned around, the church will be further impoverished
by being cut off even more from exposure to the classic theological disciplines.
The first requirement of a Wesleyan is to be a Wesleyan
in the most robust sense of that term. If that admonition is taken seriously, there is no
need for another. This is because being shaped by a Wesleyan rule of faith demands that we
live constantly and comfortably in the "strange world of the Bible." Conversely,
being immersed in that biblical world will have the effect of keeping the rule of faith
dynamic, invigorating. challenging and constitutive. Wesleyan faith, if it is true to its
own inner logic, will always be a faith seeking biblical understanding.
Bibliography
Alter, Robert. 1981. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New
York: Basic Books.
Alter, Robert and Frank Kermode, editors. 1987. The
Literary Guide to the Bible. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (Belknap).
Birch, Bruce. 1985. "Biblical Theology: Issues in
Authority and Hermeneutics." Wesleyan Theology Today. Edited by Theodore Runyon.
Nashville: Kingswood Books, 127-133.
Bright, John. 1953. The Kingdom of God. New York,
Nashville: Abingdon.
Burrows, Mark S. 1991. "Jean Gerson on the
'Traditioned Sense' of Scripture as an Argument for an Ecclesial Hermeneutic."
Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective. Edited by Mark S. Burrows and Paul Rorem.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 152-172.
Carpenter, Eugene B. 1992. "Introduction to the Old
Testament." Asbury Bible Commentary. Edited by Eugene E. Carpenter and Wayne McCown.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 116-140.
Carpenter, Eugene E. and Wayne McCown. editors. 1992.
Asbury Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Childs, Brevard S. 1992. Biblical Theology of the Old
and New Tesiaments. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Hartley, John. "Old Testament Studies in the
Wesleyan Mode." Wesleyan Theological Journal 17 (1982), 58-76.
Hauerwas, Stanley. 1993. Unleashing the Scripture:
Freeing the Bible from Captivity to America. Nashville: Abingdon.
Johnson, Paul. 1991. The Birth of the Modern: World
Society', 1815-1830. New York: Harper Collins.
Langford, Thomas A. 1984. Wesleyan Theology: A
Sourcebook. Durham. NC: The Labyrinth Press.
______ 1991. "The United Methodist Quadrilateral: A
Theological Task."
Doctrine and Theology in the United Methodist Church.
Edited by Thomas A. Langford. Nashville: Kingswood Books, 232-244.
Lyons, George. "Hermeneutical Bases for Theology:
Higher Criticism and the Wesleyan Interpreter." Wesleyan Theological Journal IX:
(1983). 63-78.
McCormack, Bruce. 1991. "Historical Criticism and
Dogmatic Interest in Karl Barth's Theological Exegesis of the New
Testament." Biblical
Hermeneurics in Hisoricist Perspective. Edited by Mark S. Burrows and Paul Rorem. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 322-338.
McCown, Wayne. 1983. "Hermeneutics: Interpretative
Theology. A Contemporary Wesleyan Theology. Vol. 2. Edited by C. W. Carter. R. I).
Thompson, and C. R. Wilson. Grand Rapids: Francis Asbury
Press. 733-778.
______ 1992. "Introduction to the New Testament
from a Wesleyan Perspective." Asbury Bible Commentary. Edited by Eugene E. Carpenter
and Wayne MeCown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 148-162.
Mickey, Paul A. 1980. Essentials of Wesleyan Theology.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan.
Munn, Sheiiil F. "Old Testament Studies in a
Wesleyan Mode: A Response to the Paper Presented by Dr. John Hartley." Wesleyan
Theological Journal 17(1982), 77-84.
Outler, Albert. 1991. "Biblical Primitivism in
Early American Methodism." The Wesleyan Theological Heritage. Edited by Thomas C.
Oden and L. R. Longden. Grand Rapids: Zondervan (Francis Asburx Press), 145-157.
______ 1991. "The Wesleyan Quadrilateral in John
Wesley." the Wesleyan Theological Heritage. Edited by Thomas C. Oden and L. R.
Longden Grand Rapids: Zondervan (Francis Asbury Press.) 21-37.
Sanders, James. 1972. Torah and Canon.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Scroggs, Robin. "John Wesley as Biblical
Scholar." Journal of Rubric and Religion. 28:24 (1960), 415-422.
Spina Frank Anthony. 1982. "Canonical Criticism:
Childs Versus Sanders." Interpreting Gods Word for Today. Edited by R. L. Shelton and
Wayne MeCown. Anderson, Indiana: Warner Press, 165-194.
______ 1991. "Biblical Scholarship in a Weslcyan
Mode: Retrospect and Prospect.' Unpublished. Presented as part of Seattle Pacific
University's Centennial Lecture Series.
_______ 1992. "Canon." A New
Handbook of
Christian Theology. Edited by Donald W. Musser and Joseph L. Price. Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 75-78.
A. Stanley, John E. "Elements of Postmodern
Holiness Hermeneutic" Illu. Journal. 28:1-2 (1993). 23 43.
Steinmetz, David C. "The Superiority of
Pre-Critical Exegesis. Theology Today. 37 (1980-81), 27-38.
Steinberg, Meir. 1985. The Poetics of Biblical
Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
The Wesley Bible. 1990. Edited by A. F. Harper.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Thorsen, Donald A. D. 1992. "The Place and
Functions of Scripture." Asbury Bible Commentary. Edited by Eugene Carpenter and
Wayne McCown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 38-59.
Wiley, H. Orton. n.d. Christian Theology. Vol 1. Kansas
City: Beacon Hill Press.
Wright, George E. 1952. God Who Acts: Biblical Theology
U.\ Recital. Studies in Biblical Theology, 8. London: SCM Press.
Notes
1I have described this situation more fully in an unpublished lecture
presented as part of Seattle Pacific University's Centennial Lecture Series (1991):
"Biblical Scholarship in a Wesleyan Mode: Retrospect and Prospect." A printed version of
this lecture is available upon request.
2Wayne McCown asserts without qualification, "The dominant
hermeneutic in the movement [i.e.. Wesleyanism] is called the inductive method (McCown
1992, 161). See later in this W.T.J. issue the honoring and basic concerns of Dr. Robert A.
Traina, a leading teacher of "inductive" Bible study.
3When I
joined the religion faculty of Seattle Pacific University in 1973,1 was informed that the
curriculum had been self-consciously weighted tow aid biblical studies and away from
theological studies. This was because theology was conceived of as a deductive enterprise
whereas biblical study was inductive, the former was "subjective and therefore
allegedly' distasteful for any students or constituents who espoused contrary theological
positions. But as an objective discipline, it was believed that inductive Bible study
would not engender Constituency criticism, at least as this was related to theological
issues.
4If the testimony of my university students is any indication, moralistic
interpretations of biblical materials is common in the Sunday Schools of many evangelical
denominations.
5Munn's contention that the fundamentalist
impulse within Wesleyanism derives chiefly from circles other than biblical scholars is,
it seems to me, wishful thinking (Munn, 77-84).
6Curiously, when I presented an oral version
of this essay at the 1994 meeting of the Wesleyan Theological Society in Dayton, Ohio,
several scholars who had contributed to TWB complained that they had never been asked to
shin a statement affirming inerrancy or anything else. The first time they knew about the
inerrancy statement, they insisted, was when the publication first appeared!
7See the comment by Thorsen that most Wesleyans are
"somewhere between the two" [i.e.. between inerrancy=Fundamentalism and
criticism=Liberalisim] (Thorsen, 41).
8In my judgment, the failure to appreciate the
theological nature of Scripture is reflected in something as mundane as assigning space in
the Asbury Bible Commentary. Romans was assigned virtually the same number of pages
as 1-2 Samuel, though the latter is significantly larger than the former. It is difficult
to escape the impression that behind such assignments is the view that Romans, as a
theological book, has more to say to the Church than 1-2 Samuel which is primarily historical.
Edited by Michael Mattei for the
Wesley Center for Applied Theology
at Northwest Nazarene University
© Copyright 2000 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology
Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes, provided the notice below the
horizontal line is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any
kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at
Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to
report errors.
|
