Relationship between Scripture and Theology
In modern times, there has been a wedge driven between the disciplines of Biblical Studies and Theology with scholars tending to specialize in one or the other. In earlier times, the two disciplines developed side by side. To a certain extent, this modern division is understandable. There comes a point in any field of study where experts need to specialize, if for no other reason than because the field is far too large to be an expert in every area of it. However, this has unfortunately resulted in a sense that Biblical Studies and Theology are utterly distinct and separate disciplines. As a result, there have been theologians who attempt to understand God in a way that bypasses special revelation in scripture and people who study the Bible who have developed a hostile attitude to the entire discipline of theology, hoping to live only by “what the Bible says.”
In reality, scripture and theology cannot finally be separated. It seems clear that theology, especially if it is to be Christian theology, is shaped by scripture. When divorced from the biblical witness, theology is cut off from its source. What may not be so evident, however, is that theology has a profound influence on how we read the scriptures. When one looks at the history of the church, one finds that the major theological conflicts are not often solved by an appeal to scripture. The question comes down to, not so much what scripture says but how one appropriates the entire biblical source. Traditionally, the main interpretational principle is that scripture is the best interpreter of scripture and that we should use the clear texts to interpret the difficult ones. And yet, even this principle cannot stand alone. We must also examine which texts we consider “clear” and “difficult.” Such theological concerns shape the way we read and appropriate the words on the page.
In light of these considerations, a word about the nature of scripture citations in this work is in order. The nature of the following theological exposition is not to try to prove the doctrines of Christian faith but rather to explain them. As such, the biblical texts cited are not intended to be “proof-texts,” as if the bare mention of them will settle the issue. When the scripture is used in such a way it ignores the fact that our theology guides how we appropriate the biblical text and it assumes that any impartial reader of these texts (often divorced from their context in various statements of faith) will immediately understand their full meaning.
It must always be remembered that, though the biblical text is called “the word of God,” it is not to be identified with the living Word of God, the second person of the Trinity that became incarnate. All texts point beyond themselves for their truth (that is, saying the car is blue is not the same as the car actually being blue. The first is a true statement, but the second is the actual reality). Biblical texts are no different. The text on the page is not the content of divine revelation but silently points beyond itself to the truth of God out of which it arises. Indeed, even John’s Gospel points to this. “Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:30-31). The goal of the written gospel is to promote a participation in the person of Jesus Christ who is the good news.
The scripture citations throughout this work are, therefore, meant to be illustrative rather than evidential. The texts are not quoted as if the bare written word will prove the doctrinal claim but rather to illustrate it. The proof of good theology is that it holds up when one considers the entirety of scripture and is revisable in light of it. All theological statements, especially in this work, are tentative and subject to revision. Again, this is a first systematic statement of theology. It is being written hoping to encourage dialogue and further clarification. As theological reflection clarifies the core message of the gospel and illuminates the text in light of it, further conclusions can be made and the theology will deepen and broaden and become more fully nuanced. If the theological reflection, upon careful study of the scripture, proves inadequate, it will be revised.
I think it would be helpful to use a designation other than "Biblical Studies" to refer to persons who proof-text, abstract, and rigidly codify the canonical texts as the single sufficient source for Christian knowledge and faith. Hebrew Bible and New Testament Scholars in the academy are, I think, much more focused on studying the texts for the purposes of reconstruction and historical and critical analysis than with constructing systems for religious living. This may reinforce your claim of a bifurcation in religious studies but does not support the conclusion that Biblical Scholars are prescriptively constructing religious systems. Of course, there are a whole slew of people out there that are guilty of proof-texting, etc. but I think they'd be more aptly dubbed "Biblicists" than "Biblical Studies" scholars.
ReplyDeleteI assume you're somewhat echoing the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. If so, will you make that explicit?
Also, while I'm being overly nitpicky, I notice that you switch between singular and plural references to "the biblical text" or "biblical texts." Might I suggest that you maintain the plural and refer to them as "canonical texts"? Since there is no universal biblical canon, and since the different texts in the canon are often quite distinct from one another, it seems like referencing one monolithic "biblical text" detracts from your sincere effort to bring the scriptures into proper context.
Wei-erh,
ReplyDeleteAgain, thank you for your comments. Though I still stand by the content of what I have said, you have certainly pressed me here for more clarity, which I will consider as I revise these sections (which is something I plan on doing over and over). I will explain first what I hope to improve in light of your comments for each concern, then follow up with the convictions that I still maintain.
1. My wording appears to be ambiguous regarding “biblical studies.” My concern, as I stated, was the separation of the Bible and theology. Those who fall on the theology side of this divide have tended to create theological systems that are based far more on a prior philosophical framework than on the Bible (perhaps most prominently in the twentieth century in Process theology, which is remarkably consistent, but significantly divorced from the Bible. For these, I would say that any theology that distances itself from the actual content of scripture, primarily the person and work of Christ, is something other than a “Christian” theology.
The concern I have for those on the “biblical studies” side is where the main point of my ambiguity lies. Though I do indeed think that a rigid and exclusive adherence to historical-critical methodology is problematic as it tends to consider texts in isolation from one another rather than as part of a greater fabric (though in some ways, this is getting better; however, such a tendency has prevented anyone who has used only this method to develop a robust doctrine of the Trinity, ecumenically affirmed as THE doctrine of God), my main concern is indeed with those who you refer to as “Biblicists.” The difficulty that arises is that, while my main concern regarding a theology-without-the-Bible is far more common in academia, the concern that I particularly have in mind for a Bible-without-theology are most often not associated with Academia, at least not the mainstream of biblical studies.
However, I am indeed NOT referring to the Wesleyan quadrilateral. (This next bit is more for other Methodists) The “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” was not used by Wesley himself in any explicit way. It was developed by Albert Outler, and, having read through the majority of Wesley’s writings, I think he is fairly accurate. However, though the quadrilateral was official United Methodist practice from 1972-1988, since 1988, the word no longer appears in our Book of Discipline. One might say that the idea is still there, but with far more priority given to Scripture.
I have a problem with a rigid Biblicist perspective, but I believe we will indeed part ways at our view of Scripture. I do indeed believe that the “canonical texts” are “the single sufficient source for Christian knowledge and faith.” However, I must clarify myself here. I do not mean that the text possesses this quality simply as a text, but rather in its ability to bear witness to the living Word of God in Jesus Christ. Truth lies primarily in a person, not a text, but we do not have any reliable access to that person outside of the scriptures. However, I also want to avoid the excesses that some in the Barthian tradition have fallen into, who root revelation simply in the Holy Spirit’s activity. The Spirit is surely active, but God seems, in general, to use scripture rather than other great works of literature. I believe that the Old and New Testaments are keyed into God’s self revelation in a unique and unrepeatable way.
2. My use of both the singular and plural is absolutely intentional. However, you are correct in asserting that there is no cannon that is universally approved by all. I should include a comment that I am particularly speaking of the Protestant canon, though I am aiming to articulate a fully catholic and orthodox vision of the Christian faith. While I am aware of the difficulties this may potentially have (when considered a priori), I believe that there is much hope that this will be successful (judged a posteriori by the labors of certain theologians, such as T. F. Torrance)
ReplyDeleteMy main distinction between the singular and plural is that, while the plural refers to particular pericopes, the singular refers to the entire Biblical witness, throughout the Protestant canon (both Old and New Testaments). The reason I insist on using both of these should be clear by now, inasmuch as to insist on referring to the Bible as a collection of texts without also seeing them as intimately bound up with each other is to say that these texts have nothing to say to each other, which I absolutely deny. It is certainly possible to see the texts (particular the Old Testament, which, in this Christian context, I absolutely refuse to call “the Hebrew Bible,” and the New Testament) in isolation from one another, but this is not the approach taken by the great tradition of the church and it is not the approach taken here.