the interpretation and authority of scripture (systematic theology I)

this is a continuation of my Systematic Theology critical log (see 1/28/05 for explanation)

The Interpretation and Authority of Scripture In the Life and Witness of the Church – 2/11/05

Initial Thoughts:
I have worked with a definition of the authority of Scripture until recently. My definition of Biblical authority over the years has been the Bible is the irreplaceable Word of God that provides the first and final truth on every aspect of life and faith, both to the individual as well as to the world. This word has always been rooted in a belief that fallible human beings wrote the Bible but the output was a single, inerrant word that accounts for the entire history of humanity from creation to consummation. I viewed all questioning of the Bible’s origination and content as a direct attack on God himself and an automatic sign that the individual or group was looking to find away to justify his or her behavior that fell outside the realm of the Bible’s authority. In summary, the Bible had one meaning, as located in the original meaning of the author, for all people of all time and that meaning needed to be received from God and applied to the lives of sinful humans.
I started to question this view of authority when an extreme dispensationalist friend challenged me to take the Bible more literally. The authority of Scripture for him was based on not only the precise, divinely orchestrated wording of the Bible but also on the literal meanings found in prophetic writings. In short, he tried to intimidate me and I was confused from the experience.
I have been wrestling with the notion of the authority and interpretation of Scripture since that encounter. I have witnessed both the danger in using the Bible literally to respond to a personal question (i.e. why do people still sin after salvation?) as well as individuals justifying behavior by discounting the authority of Scripture. I have also noted the role of context in how individuals formulate theologies and worldviews. My main question going into the reading for this week is can the Bible bear witness to Jesus Christ and, subsequently, guide and form the community of believers without being viewed as a perfectly written, historically accurate word from God? In other words, how can a non-fundamentalist view of the Bible have any authority in the lives of sinful individuals and groups who want to justify their own agendas?

Cone: God of the Oppressed (57-98)
Cone continues to raise new insights into the interpretation of Scripture in light of real cultural issues. He provides a description of his view of the authority of Scripture in relation to checking ideologies on p. 93 when he states “Checks against ideological language in theology are not derived abstractly from the Word of God because God’s Word is not an abstract object, but is the liberating Subject in the lives of the oppressed struggling for freedom.� He repeatedly asserts that the only valid exegesis of the Scriptures is when Jesus Christ is viewed as the Liberator, the helper, and the healer of the wounded. Furthermore, he boldly asserts on p. 72 that individuals cannot follow Jesus if they have any priority higher than the gospel of the liberation of the poor.
Cone’s arguments for Jesus as the liberator of the poor and the call for a much-needed understanding of this is persuasive. I do not agree, however, if his repeated statements that only those who are poor or are oppressed can understand the gospel message. He boldly states that the Jesus’ telling of the rich man to sell his goods was a proof that Jesus only wants people whose priority is the liberation of the poor. He also unfairly refers to the person who wanted to bury his father. Cone conveniently leaves out references to stories where Jesus doesn’t require rulers, such as the Centurion, to leave their life as a ruler. Jesus also tells Nicodemus to be born again but he doesn’t require him to discontinue his role as a Pharisee. Overall, Cone’s argument loses its initial persuasiveness when he doesn’t include any potential counter-examples and responses to those examples. To be fair, he does include some warnings to the oppressed that are susceptible to the same temptations as their oppressors if/when they are liberated from their circumstances. However, this doesn’t answer the in/out argument that he sets up for those who do not consider the liberation of the poor as the highest priority as revealed in Jesus Christ in the Scriptures.

Question(s):
How much does the immediacy of Cone’s context and situation play into his extreme arguments that leave very little room for counter-examples and subsequent discussion? This raises the question of the theologian herself/himself as a criteria for good theology?

Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion (69-81, 94-96)
Calvin transitions from his discussion of the general revelation to the role of Scripture. He frames the discussion by describing the Scriptures as a better help to be added (to general revelation) to direct individuals to the Creator. Calvin equates the Word of God with Holy Scripture and anyone who is outside of Scripture is full of vanity. He states that Scripture has full authority among believers only when individuals believe that they came from heaven and they are the living words of God. More specifically, the highest proof of Scripture derives from the fact that God in person speaks in it and the testimony of the Spirit regarding this is more excellent than all reason. Finally, the believer must avail oneself to Scripture in order to receive from the Spirit of God because the Word and Spirit belong inseparably together.
Calvin’s response to the Church’s emphasis on itself as the authority leads to a view of Scripture that equates it with God. The outcome of Calvin’s move, however, is shows how the assumption of the infallibility of the Bible should be put under the same questioning as the infallibility of the Pope and/or Church. Is the Bible the Word of God or is Jesus the Word of God who is given witness in the Scriptures?
I have always viewed the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God without subjecting this assumption to any rational questioning. My fear of having the Bible not hold up in an argument, especially against people who are ‘smarter’ than me, led me to take a classic “retreat to commitment� stance on the Bible as perfect. Calvin states that we should strive onward by a straight path if we seriously aspire to the pure contemplation of God. My response to my past view of Scripture and Calvin’s notion of pure contemplation is that perfect and pure approaches to the Bible and related contemplation are not possible. Instead, the authority of Scripture doesn’t fall in the perfection of every word and letter, but in the way that it continues to be the primary guide to the community of faith. At this point, I do not know how to reconcile the role of the Bible in the community if the community doesn’t view the Bible as authoritative in the sense of being a perfect Word of God. This discussion shows that I have left the safety net of my beliefs to date.

Question(s):
How can a believer in Jesus Christ receive guidance from the Bible if he or she does not view the Bible as infallible in all senses? In other words, how can a community of faith exist if each person or group can pick and choose what is authoritative and what is not based on his or her or its specific question or problem set?

Tillich: Systematic Theology Volume One (34-59)
Tillich provides the building blocks for his method of correlation in this section. I read the section on the method in the first week without the much-needed background information that was provided in this section. The discussion on the sources, mediums, experiences and norms involved in systematic theology framed Tillich’s approach.
I admittedly was ignorant of church history before coming to PTS. In particular, I fell under (and still in some ways) the category of those who believe that everything that is needed for theology and the church community is in the Bible. I didn’t realize how fundamentalist-leaning I was until I came to PTS. My exposure to church history in classes has raised many questions and Tillich provided more to consider in this section. In particular, he proposes the Bible, church history, and the history of religion and culture as sources of theology. He rightly points out that the debate between Protestants and Catholics regarding the authority of each one continues to undermine the importance of considering both.
Tillich’s notion of a norm is portrayed the patterns of the encounter of the church with the biblical message throughout the history of Christianity. The material norm, such as the early church creeds, and the formal norm, such as the early hierarchy of authorities, reveal the demands of the situation. My predisposition to the Bible as the main source of authority is disturbed by this view of the interaction between the church and the Bible as the norm as opposed to the Bible itself. However, Tillich’s examples show the changing demands of the situation by relating them to the updated norms. More specifically, he reveals how each norm places emphases on different parts of Scripture based on the demand of the situation. The one example that struck me was Martin Luther’s desire to reduce the influence of the book of James due to its focus on works.
Tillich states, “the norm decides the canonicity of books� on p. 51. I disagree with this statement because, once again, I see this as placing too much power or authority in the possession of an individual or group who wants to set the agenda. Shouldn’t the canon check the norms that are set by personal agendas? The Luther example proves to me the importance of letting the canon check the norm instead of the other way around. The book of James was selected to be in the canon for specific reasons and one of the reasons, from what I gather, was to keep Christians from moving away from the significance of works in the Christian life and community.

Question(s):
How does Tillich’s notion of the partial openness of the canon as a safeguard of the Spirituality of the Christian church apply to norms that develop far outside of the traditional views of church history and the Biblical interpretation? Should the canon be further divided than it already is based on new norms?

Ruether: “Feminist Interpretation: A Method of Correlation� (111-124)
I agree with Ruether’s assessment that the traditional, patriarchy interpretations in the church have reduced women’s roles. In addition, I agree that the full humanity of women is an issue that has not been addressed through much of the history of Christianity. I continue to disagree with her assumption that the anything that has contributed to the less than full humanity of women in any way needs to be removed and deemed without authority. My question to Ruether is are the issues a result of the text or the interpretations of the texts? In other words, does she really believe that removing certain texts will solve the issue? My issue with her description of authority is that the entire problem does not lie with the texts but also, in my opinion, is related to the sinful responses of humanity, both male and female, to the treatment of women. I see solutions that do not involve the discarding of parts of the Bible simply because they have contributed in some form or fashion to the patriarchy worldview.

Final Thoughts:
The authority of Scripture is called into question by modern theologies when the result is a system that oppresses a group. The reaction, based on what I have read so far, is to both declare that the given authority is not legitimate and to seek ways to change the interpretation and/or the actual text itself. The voices of black theologians, feminist theologians, and others need to be heard but how quick should we be to change almost 2000 years of the history of Christianity? I haven’t seen any concessions by Cone or Ruether that point to any legitimacy to views that oppose their own. Ruether states that the full humanity of women does not mean a less humanity of men but she doesn’t state any potential problems with her theology. I will need to see a concession (or more) by the modern theologians for me to take their arguments more seriously. I want to take into account their worldviews but I need to see that they can step outside of their goals in order for me to incorporate their views into my systematic theology. At the same time, I will continue to listen to the voices of Cone, Gutierrez, and Ruether in order to see how I may be challenged in my theological assumptions.