AN ALTERNATIVE TO FUNDAMENTALIST APPROACHES TO SCRIPTURE INTERPRETATION

 

My claims about the Fundamentalist/“Evangelical” (F/E) approach to Scripture

  • It arises out of the sectarian* nature of this type of Christianity—i.e., the need for an authority not based on ecclesiastical tradition or hierarchies, and superior to them.
  • Its historical roots are sola scriptura (“scripture only”) claims made by various early reformers, including Wycliffe, Hus, and Luther: again, a sectarian context.
  • The sectarian nature of F/E Christianity helps explain F/E claims that the Bible is “clear” (or “perspicuous”) and can therefore be interpreted literally—i.e., the need for a magisterium, council, or other authority to interpret Scripture must be excluded.
  • Essentially, therefore, the F/E approach denies that it is doing interpretation—it is simply reading what the Bible says. This refusal to acknowledge that what they are doing is interpretation shuts off dialogue, and is disingenuously authoritarian.
  • The 20th century version of the F/E approach to Scripture was shaped by additional (sectarian) factors, mainly a reaction against modern science, the historical critical approach to Scripture, and Catholicism.

 

F/E claims about Scripture (My source is The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

      [1978], signed by a number of leading Fundamentalists and Evangelicals).

  • Scripture is inspired by God. This is the fundamental claim. “We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God” (Chicago Statement, Art. III).
  • This claim is the basis for asserting the authority of Scripture
  • Therefore, Scripture is also infallible and inerrant (Art. XV). It “is true and reliable in all the matters that it addresses” (Art. XI) and “free from falsehood, fraud, or deceit” (Art. XII). Further, “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood” (Art. XII).
  • The Chicago Statement says little directly about interpretation, though in the “Exposition” that follows the articles, it does touch on some issues of interpretation, e.g., that numbers may be understood as approximations, that poetry is poetry, hyperbole is hyperbole, and that the Bible authors’ milieux are properly taken into consideration.
  • “We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture” (Art. XIV, my emphasis). It is on this basis that individual verses can be taken as “what the Bible says” on any particular topic.
  • “We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture interprets Scripture” (Art. XVIII). [The claim that Scripture interprets Scripture qualifies the claim of the clarity of Scripture by recognizing textual obscurities].

 

Features of F/E practice of Scripture interpretation

  • They claim to interpret the Bible “literally,” a principle applied selectively.
  • The Bible is univocal (complete inner consistency, no contradictions). The Bible is clear, and ambiguity is only apparent; therefore, literal interpretation is possible.
  • Since the Bible is inerrant, the deny the existence of inconsistencies, contradictions, mistakes, moral errors, historical errors, scientific errors, sources, etc.
  • F/E interpretation tends to be non-contextual, a habit fostered by the practice in older Bible translations of printing individual verses as though they were complete, independent statements. Individual verses then are taken as “what the Bible says” on any topic. This approach also makes it possible to paste together verses from all over the Bible to construct apocalyptic scenarios that do not exist anywhere except in the interpreter’s imagination.
  • Because of the claimed “clarity” of Scripture, any individual can pick up a Bible unaided and understand it. This is the basis for the placement of Gideon Bibles in hotels, etc.

 

An ecumenical Christian approach (i.e., one that reflects broadly the approach to Scripture used in Catholic and derivative communions that share many basic traditions).

  • Ecumenical Christianity does not identify the Bible with the Word of God. The “Word” is primarily Jesus Christ, not a book. Hence, not every word in the Bible is the “Word of God.” Therefore, a “lens” for the interpretation of Scripture is necessary (e.g., Christ).
  • Scripture is multivalent, not univocal. During much of Church history, several “senses” of texts were recognized, e.g., the allegorical, anagogical, tropological, and literal.
  • Scripture is also heterogeneous. Both biblical scholarship and ecumenical Christianity recognize that diversity is intrinsic to the canonical process itself (multiple creation accounts, multiple gospels, multiple histories of Israel).
  • Therefore, the meaning of Scripture—the doctrine and praxis derived from it—needs to be discerned communally.  Roman Catholics have a formal magisterium to provide official interpretation, but various Protestant groups have official gatherings in which discernment takes place.
  • Ecumenical Christianity does not base its official teachings or practice solely on Scripture. It also uses church tradition, reason, and experience.
  • In practice, ecumenical Christianity has shown itself open to the insights of modern biblical interpretation, including the recognition that Scripture is a human artifact. For example, “The historical critical method is the indispensable method for the scientific study of the meaning of ancient texts” (Pontifical Biblical Commission: “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church,” 1994, sec. I.A. [written by Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J.—personal communication]).
  • F/E and ecumenical Christianity share a conviction that the Bible is or can be a means of revelation. F/Es identify the Bible with God’s revelation, and from that derive the belief that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. Ecumenical Christianity, from its conviction that the Bible is a means of divine revelation, derives the authoritative status of the Bible as the normative story on the basis of which it lives.
  • F/E and ecumenical Christian approaches are similar in the selective use of literal interpretation. In the case of the latter, the words “this is my body” used at the Last Supper are interpreted literally by Catholics and many Protestants.

 

Additional observations:

  • The Bible as a single book did not exist until the 4th century, and then it was extremely rare until the advent of the printing press.
  • The Church existed before the Bible; it created the New Testament, and decided the content of the Bible (various Christian traditions—Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, et al.—have different Bibles). Modern biblical scholarship has shown that the Protestant distinction between “tradition” and “scripture” is misleading—it’s all tradition.
  • Scripture has been the basis not for the unity of Christianity but for its disunity.

 

*”Sectarian” is used in its theological, not its sociological sense; that is, a sect does not adhere to classic traditions of Western Christianity: creedal, liturgical, sacramental, political (church structure), an ordered and educated clergy, etc. However, Roy Wallis’ claim that sects are “epistemologically authoritarian” is appropriate to the sectarian approach that I discuss.

                                                                                                                        Arland D. Jacobson