My friend Ed raised some good points last week (while I was immersed in finals) in a response to my last post on Barth.
Ed notes that in his opinion, Barth is asking the wrong question when he delves into the inerrancy of the Bible, and likewise, I am really going no where useful in attempting to create a deconstructionist framework around the same basic principles as Barth. So, are we asking the wrong question?
Perhaps, but I think it is an important wrong question at least. I was reading some assigned sections of Paul Tillich's Systematic Theology the other day (don't worry Ed, I'm not going to defend Tillich), and he was busy making the distinction between kerygmatic and apologetic theology. Barth, he correctly notes, is in the kerygmatic camp: Barth's intention (which I think he is fairly good at sticking to) is to let the Bible ask the questions and provide the answers. Tillich on the other hand wants to pose modern questions to the Bible, the apologetic approach. I think in as much as Barth is sticking to questions from the Bible, Ed wouldn't complain about Barth's approach.
But, Barth does worry about inerrancy and a bunch of other things, and I would say that is rightly so. My posts have essentially formed the prolegomena of my "theology," and the sections of Barth we are dealing with are likewise from his prolegomena. When Barth rejects the inerrancy of the Bible and shifts the focus to the self-Revelation of Christ which is witnessed to in the Bible, he is setting the base assumption from which he will proceed. I would argue that the question is not perhaps the most relevant -- we spend way too much time arguing about inerrancy -- but at the same time, Barth does his readers a favor by explaining his methodology up front. He really must deal with the question, because people want to deal with that question.
It all comes down to admitting we all use a methodology. We cannot escape operating within frameworks. No matter how much we try to get to the core of the text (not only with the Bible, but with any text), we are still stuck interpreting it from within layers of frameworks -- frameworks of experience, frameworks of knowledge of other texts, frameworks of personality and so on. We can skip over the question of interpretation, because it is primarily abstract and has little to do with doing, but I would assert that does not bring us closer to the meaning of the Bible, because we are still going to be reading it within the frameworks that we are stuck in. Admitting that does not suddenly fix the problem, but it brings us closer to the source of the problem. Ed writes,
If the audience is culturally, geographically and historically far away from Jesus' fresh footprints in the sand, then it's yours to also bring them to that understanding, place and time. As some put it, we are to incarnate the Word, bring it/Him to life. Absolutes were never possible from the moment of the Fall, so don't fret. God expects obedience. Surely that assumes what He expects of you He will put within your reach? What other purpose is there for calling you into His Kingdom? Theology from a Spiritual viewpoint embraces your best understanding of what Old and New Testaments testified.
I think he is right that we need to try to read the Bible from the perspective of its authors, but I would argue that in doing so, we are trying to establish a particular critical framework, we are not abolishing the work of the prolegomena altogether. The traditional views of Higher Criticism, from which Barth is working, actually argues that we should ground the text historically.
Ed's contention is that we must quit just focusing on using our reasoning abilities and actually live the Gospel. I agree. However assuming we want to understand what we are living, I think a good first step is to analyze our mode of interpreting what it is we are to live. We will live differently if we proceed under Schleiermacher's assumptions than if we proceed under Barth's. But not only that, but consider if we read the Bible under Pentecostal assumptions? Clearly living the Gospel takes on a very different light in that context. Barth's observation that we must focus on the living Word of God (Christ) as revelation is critical to that, because Christ's self-revelation to us gives us the confidence to then live what we believe.
To some extent, it is absurd to live out any text, because we cannot ever completely understand the text. Here we have our paradoxical absurdity for our inner Kierkegaardians to delight in. But the Christian is not living a text, but living in the eternal revelation of God in Christ.
Trackback URL: http://asisaid.com/journal/trackback/1225.html
I consider myself an evangelical. I was born, raised, and received my initial formal theological education within that milieu. Furthermore, I do not reject the importance of what evangelicals hold dear - Christ, Scripture, Mission. However, I am not really a fan of inerrancy. It seems to me, as I suggested in the comments to your previous post on these matters, that inerrancy gets the relation between Christ and Scripture wrong.
Inerrancy affirms that (in the original autographs, mind you - a distinction that renders the whole doctrine basically pointless) all the statements, narratives, etc, of Scripture are without error, that is, the correctly correspond to reality, history, etc. Such inerrancy is impossible from the standpoint of human authors, and so those who support inerrancy have recourse to divine authorship. Because God is without sin and error, that which God authors must be likewise without sin an error.
Well, this argument from logical necessity is unconvincing seeing as God created the world as we know it. Sure, humanity is responsible for the Fall and evil. But, God is responsible for making a humanity that could Fall and produce evil. Following the logic applied to the inerrancy of Scripture, creation should be one perfect work of God lacking in nothing and possessing no errors or infelicities. So, if God is capable of working in this way with creation, there is no logical necessity that Scripture be inerrant on the basis of divine authorship.
Evangelicals have criticized Barth’s view of Scripture by saying that he confuses inspiration with illumination. This criticism can be countered with the charge that evangelicals confusion inspiration with incarnation. At the root of this problem is a confusion about revelation. Only incarnation can be true and perfect revelation. Those who affirm inerrancy seem to recognize this. But, rather than being content with the incarnate revelation found in Christ, they posit a second incarnate revelation in Scripture. Scripture, we are told, is perfect revelation (inerrant). Because Christ seems to them to be beyond our reach, they posit a perfect incarnate revelation within their reach.
The problem with historical criticism, then, is that it undercuts this second perfect incarnate revelation. Of course, that this is the case is very odd to me since most inerrantists have a preference from historical / grammatical exegetical methods, and historical criticism is simply doing the historical task no holds bared. They don’t seem to be to be necessarily mutually exclusive. But, then again, I’m not committed to inerrancy.
Christ is the perfect, incarnate revelation of God. Scripture is the authorized witness to that revelation, and it is thereby the rule of faith and practice for Christians in all that it touches upon. But, it is subordinate to the revelation of Christ. The important thing is not so much precisely what the Scriptural text says, but the way in which Christ shines through the text. Granted, Christ only shines through the text in all its minutia, but Christ is the point, not the minutia.
I’ve rambled for too long, but these are some of my thoughts - for what they are worth…
P.S. As a general rule, I don’t think any questions are ‘wrong’.
Nice. You were fair with me, as I tried to be with you and your favorites.
WTM: Thanks, very good points and not rambling at all. I think you hit on some key issues. I’ve intentionally not gone into inerrancy too much, but rather looked at the issue of discussing inerrancy. As you say, much of it is pointless, since the subject that is argued to be inerrant is the original manuscripts that we do not have. Despite this, it easily becomes an idol which distracts from the revelation of God in Christ. I too have an evangelical background and affirm the three points you mention, hence my interest in the previous post of showing why Barth is really perfectly useful to Evangelicals. Personally, I’ve come to use the term “Reformed” since it does not carry the baggage that “Evangelical” does, in addition to being a bit more precise.
Ed: Thanks, what else would you expect?
Funny thing about labels: On the one hand, I defend their use as practical shorthand. On the other hand, I don’t fit well too many of the popular ones. As I noted in my pieces, I’ll use the term “inerrancy” to describe my position in certain settings, because I don’t want to waste time in pointless rabbit-chasing. It’s accurate enough for most discussions, but I’m not afraid to debunk it when it becomes the central issue. I’m finding some trouble even claiming “Reformed,” but like you, I find it safer than Evangelical. Lately, I’ve told folks I’m not quite a Baptist, even though I’m ordained as one.
Please enter your comment entry below. Press 'Preview' to see how it will look.