Skip to content

Posts tagged ‘Anglicanism’

Dec 9

2 Comments

Interpreting Scripture Ain’t Easy

Alternative title: The Doctrine of Scripture – Part IV (Interpretation)

I once had a theology professor who told our class, “I don’t interpret the Bible. I take the text as it stands.” That’s like a soccer player saying he doesn’t kick the ball, he just scores goals. Ya know, there really ought to be a PhD revocation clause for making insanely idiotic statements that reveal a lack of elementary understanding of one’s discipline. A historian who claims it’s not important to read primary source documents? An archaeologist who doesn’t affirm excavation? Demoted! Anyway, if I’ve heard such comments made by actual, well, supposed theologians, you can imagine what I’ve heard laypersons say about the biblical texts’ clarity.

As far as conservatives go, I’ve been pleasantly surprised that Anglicans tend toward a bit more well-rounded perspective. (I suspect this is reflective of their tradition’s historical orientation and the value it has placed on education.) Still, a few minutes clicking around the Anglican blogosphere reveals some pretty simplistic declarations about the perspicuity of Scripture, especially amidst the Anglican/Episcopal divide. One well-known Anglican blogger recently chided, “At the end of the day it comse down to this. Do we take the Bible seriously? Yes or no. Don’t try to get around that simple question.” I commend such passion for fidelity to the Scriptures, but am troubled by the knee-jerk response to boil down complex issues when the going gets tough. It seems to me true faithfulness requires that, at such times, we employ those faculties we’ve been endowed with.

I belief conservative Anglicans ought to be forthright about the fact that the Bible must be interpreted and interpretation is, unfortunately, an imperfect art. (It’s not a science.) Honest truth? We’re faced with a daunting task. Even the Bible’s newest books are 2,000 years old. The cultural-historical contexts of its authors are incomprehensibly different than our own. And its genres are generally foreign to even well-read modern Westerners. Catholics warned Luther that Scripture alone wasn’t enough: If he put the Bible in the hands of the people, they’d come up with all sorts of bizarre, off-the-wall interpretations and have never-ending disagreements over everything. One look around at our bazillion Protestant sects and it becomes obvious that Erasmus & Co. were right.

In my opinion, Anglicans should do two things. First, acknowledge that the historic Catholic critique has merit and avoid the Bible-only, i.e. Sola Scriptura‘s dumbed down descendant,  impulse of much contemporary evangelicalism. They should insist that Scripture be interpreted through the lens of The Great Tradition. Their stand should be for historic orthodoxy serving as a set presuppositional parameters guiding exegesis and application. Whether one wants to call it the Rule of Faith, the Vincentian Canon, or Mere Christianity, they should be committed to that which all Christians everywhere have always believed. Second, they should set about the task of rigorously studying the biblical texts and their cultural-historical contexts.

Interpretation ain’t easy. That’s why we should work so hard at it.

Dec 3

11 Comments

Miniblog #35: The Incarnational View of Inspiration

Alternative title: The Doctrine of Scripture – Part II (Inspiration)

My thoughts on Scripture’s inspiration are perhaps most influenced by Mark Noll’s historical analysis in Between Faith and Criticism: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and the Bible in America. He explains that, on the one hand, classic liberal thought stripped Scripture of its divine origin. Thus, it can and should be interpreted like any other ancient primary source document. (This thought continues to linger in The Episcopal Church.) In direct response, conservatives swung the pendulum to the other extreme in emphasizing its divine origin. 19th century theologians like Charles Hodge and B.B. Warfield were adamant that the Bible is the Word of God. More than a century later, Peter Enns’ book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, suggests that conservatives have often been guilty of a sort of Scriptural Docetism. It merely appears the Bible was written by human authors but, in reality, to quote conservative Anglican J.I. Packer, God “overruled [their] writing and… thinking” such that He is the true author; or He is more fully the author. It seems to me that both extremes are inadequate. Those on either ideological polarity have made massive mistakes stemming from an unwilling to accept paradox and tension. The result is oversimplification of a complex reality. I’m reminded of Philip Yancey’s observation that a “church uncomfortable with paradox tends to tilt in one direction or the other, usually to disastrous consequences.” I believe that the Bible is special revelation; the divinely-inspired Word of God as communicated by human authors living in precise cultural-historical contexts. As is often said, it’s both/and rather than either/or. An admittedly limited analogy–that I used before reading Enns’ book but had better cite–is Jesus: simultaneously fully God and fully man. In the same way that orthodox Christology insists that His two natures are inconfused, unchangeable, indivisible, and inseparable, so I’m convinced Scripture’s two origins must be upheld. For this reason, I reject verbal-plenary inspiration and affirm Enns’ incarnational view.

Dec 2

3 Comments

Miniblog #34: The Anglican Crisis Over Scripture

Alternative title: The Doctrine of Scripture – Part I (Introduction)

From respected theologians down to many lay persons, I’ve heard numerous self-identified “orthodox Anglicans” posit that the split with The Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada ultimately boils down to one thing: The Bible. These persons assert that they “take the Bible seriously” or “actually treat the Bible authoritatively.” While I agree with the general spirit in which those comments are made, I’m reluctant to stand behind such remarks. In them I think these persons are, all too often, guilty of oversimplifying a complex reality. That’s the impetus for this series. Agree or disagree with my present understanding of the Bible, my hope is to flesh out my own thoughts a bit and get Christians, Anglicans or otherwise, to think with precision about the doctrine of Scripture. This series will be comprised of eight miniblogs, including this introduction. The subsequent topics will be the Bible’s inspiration, purpose, interpretation, authority, application, extent, and relationship to church history. I figure what better way to kick off a new blog than with a series reflecting on Scripture?