Quire 63, folio 1 recto of the Codex Sinaiticus, http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net
If you recall, the first point of Bebbington’s quadrilateral is biblicism: a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all spiritual truth is to be found in its pages). But that was then, and this is now. My interpretation of the first point of the quadrilateral is biblicism, a particular regard for an ahistorical, context-free reading of the Bible. Here’s why I think so.
I see over and over (especially within the more ‘spirit-filled’ churches) a push for young evangelicals and new Christians to not exercise the brain in interpreting scripture, but to rely on ‘what the Spirit is telling you through the text.’ To answer the critics who will attack me (though not in the comments – that would be ok), I’m not trying to bash the Spirit – what I am bashing is the idea that individualism rules over biblical interpretation. Ours is a communal faith that requires us to learn from our elders and teachers; reader-centric, ‘Spirit-filled’ readings of the Bible strip us of the accountability we need as responsible Christians.
This individualist interpretation is rooted in the idea that the stories, letters, and songs found in the scriptures were written to us, right now, today, in Canada/U.S./England/Paraguay/Wherever you may be. This is wrong. Two of the best classes I have ever taken in any educational context were Survey of the Hebrew Scriptures with Dr. Stan Walters and Survey of the New Testament with Steve Thomson. I learned two things above all else from these men: that the Bible wasn’t written to us, but merely for us; and that the Scriptures are our holy texts, not the stories held within. Let me hash out these ideas:
The Bible wasn’t written to us, but merely for us. Many people hear that the Bible is ‘God’s love letter to Christians.’ That’s nice, but it’s tripe; the Bible is so much more than that. The Bible is an amalgamation of 2500-odd years of storytelling, meticulously written to be presented to very specific followers of the (now fully-revealed) Trinitarian God, whom we serve. To really understand what God was telling them, and from which we can derive what God is telling us, we need to know their contexts. I once read that text without context is pretext. How very true. This is not an easy thing to do, but I’ll get to solutions further down the page.
The Scriptures are our holy texts, not the stories held within. To go along with the above point, it is imperative that we remember that the texts we take as our Scriptures are more than the sum of the narratives held within: even the grammar of it all should be Holy to us. As I’ve studied 2 years of Greek and now into my 2nd year of Hebrew, I am finding that both languages are ridiculously complex, compared to lazy, boring English. Not only that, but the authors of both the OT and the NT are working in genres that are so much more complex than what we regularly deal with in our contemporary settings. Hebrew Parrallelism is pretty much mind-blowing, and don’t even get me started on the 14-odd translatory values of the Genitive case in Greek.
So why does this sound so new? Context? Grammar? Here’s what I think happened – I think that these were understood en masse by Christians in the early days of Christianity. These things were taught as tools for the interpretative process until the centralization of power by Rome’s new pet religion and the Dark Ages led into a knowledge choke-point for the people. Scholarship has been playing catch-up ever since, and really only gaining ground since archaelogy hit the ground running. Since then, it seems most pastors tend towards using the Bible as proof-text to help their congregations get through life, without really wrestling with the hard questions found within. In turn, they intuitively teach their congregations that reading the text emotionally (what they would call, ‘in the Spirit’) is how one finds the 3-point sermons of living life in Canada in the 21st Century.
Solution? It’ll be hard, but I think that those who are trained in this stuff (pastors, I’m looking at you) need to disseminate it in real, educationally-viable ways. We need to walk away from easy proof-texting to tell people how to live life and step into the dirty ground of teaching how to fully read a bible, with helps like commentaries and dictionaries and study bibles (NOT the Life Application Bible) – which will lead into some really hard questions, but I think will also lead into deeper, richer faiths for Evangelicals everywhere. For all those non-pastors out there, start by picking up a good commentary (e.g. Anchor Bible Series, NIV Commentary) and just using that as a help – a written mentor to help show you how to really read the Bible for all its worth, without having to rely on our fickle emotions of the time to influence how we think the Spirit is talking to us.
Next on the docket for Evangelicalism: the regard for Christ’s atoning work…as fire insurance.
WK
This entry was written by , posted on November 4, 2008 at 12:32 am, filed under Christianity, Church and tagged Bebbington, Bible, Evangelicalism, Interpretation, Teaching. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.
I find that after being taught that for the majority of my Christian upbringing that it’s so hard to get out of that way of thinking (that the Bible was written to us and looking for what the bible is telling us for our time and our situation).
I love that you wrote about this! I have been thinking about this alot for myself..in a much simpler form mind you..haha. I am taking the synoptic gospels at kings and it is challenging me in so many ways, which to be honest is a bit scary. I think one of the reasons many christians don’t dig deeper into historical context and such is because it’s like throwing away that safety net which can be quite frightening cause it forces you to really think about your faith and taking the bible as 100% truth. (which is a whole other thing).
Anyway, this is something that I’m working on alot because I am very much a feeler and tend to fall into that “holy spirit” category alot of times I think. But I have to say, I am really enjoying being challenged in this way! I am starting to see scripture in a new light.
It’s a little overwhelming too, which is another reason I think people avoid going there. We are just too comfortable with the whole candy coated love thing in my opinion. *shrugs*
Hey Nicole,
The Synoptic Gospels have really given a lot of people trouble, since the biggest thing people have to get over is that Son of Man and Son of God are Messianic Titles and not Divine titles. That’s hard stuff, especially when current study is really into showing how everything ties to the Kingdom of God being here and now, and not some hairy-fairy bodiless heaven when we die.
That is hard stuff, and this is where faith comes in: We have to remember that these people already believed that Jesus is God (see Paul, written before the Gospels) and that is part of the context of the Synoptics.
I know! It hurts my brain sometimes..
As far as Messianic titles vs. Divine..when you have a high christology..it’s more of a lofty idea of Christ, more towards the divine as opposed to low christology, which I’m sure you know. Orthodox christianity has both, right?
Like who was Jesus? Was he a real human being, the son of God, the Messiah, the son of Man, God..all of the above? Jewish messianic expectation was high at the time of Jesus (or at least there is evidence that suggests so) and the word “christ” comes from the Greek word “messiah” right? And I know that Jews and christians today disagree on whether Jesus was the messiah or not. bah.
It is really making me think through alot of things that I just didn’t even really give thought to before.
I apologize if this is just a bunch of words that isn’t making much sense! I have so much in my head right now and am exhausted from freaking school.
Orthodox Christianity would say that Jesus was both Messiah (Christ), as well as God (Trinity).
On the topic of who was Jesus, I’m sure he is all, especially as I would say that Son of Man, Son of God, and Messiah are all the same thing. The Israelites were expecting a Messiah soon, but when Jesus came, he turned the idea of Messiah on its head and told the Israelites that the Kingdom of God was not a powerful nation, but a community committed to servanthood, suffering, and love. They weren’t keen on that.
Keep wrestling! These last few years have turned my Christology on its head, and made it so much deeper for my understanding of Jesus the Christ as ultimate prophet (and divine son) of God, in relation to the rest of the Trinity.
I believe the quote is “Text withOUT context is pretext for a proof text.”
“The Scriptures are our holy texts, not the stories held within.” That’s a good one.
Hey Keo, thanks for catching that – fixed.