This past week the Lower Mainland in British Columbia has been abuzz with a visit by N. T. Wright. Wright has thoughtfully challenged the reformed and evangelical clan to be more deeply reformed and evangelical.
Wright’s more catholic approach to the reformed exegetical tradition has challenged a way of doing exegesis. But, has it? I will return to this question shortly. There is no doubt that Wright has taken to task the Packer-Piper position, and he has done so in an informed manner. All are agreed that the Bible is the foundation and authority, but it has become obvious that how the Bible is interpreted is another form of authority. Why are some books in the canon elevated and others subordinated, some texts prized and others demoted, some sections cherished and others ignored? There are, therefore, two levels of authority both within the Old and New Testaments: the Bible and its interpretation. It is this deutero-canonical authority that Wright is, rightly so, questioning. There are those that so equate Bible-interpretation that they do not know the difference between the authority of the one and the questionable authority of the other. But, let us move on.
N.T. Wright and those he dares to question stand within the protestant literal-grammatical-historical exegetical tradition. This tradition is both indebted to the modernist commitment to reason and the much older tradition of Biblical exegesis that dominated Antioch in the Patristic era. John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia are but two of the formidable exegetes and theologians that stand within such a classical heritage. So does, in different ways, N.T.Wright and those he is doing battle with these days. The core of the Antioch-Reformed-Evangelical approach to exegesis is to interpret the text, as faithfully as possible from its original context, then apply, when possible, the truth of the original message to our context. The dilemma, of course, is this: whose interpretation is the truest and most faithful? This is where Wright and Packer-Piper see things in a different way and manner. The issue of ‘justification’ is but the tip of the iceberg in this ongoing and challenging dialogue about the how the text should be interpreted. But, the commitment to the text as the source and fount of authority, and the rational approach to exegesis mean that although Packer-Wright-Piper do differ on their conclusions, they share the same method: Antioch is their guide. I get a sense of déjà vu when I read the method used by Wright-Piper: Antioch lives again.
The publication of Hans Boersma’s recent book, Nouvelle Theologie and Sacramental Ontology: A Return to Mystery, raises some necessary questions for those committed to Antioch. Hans has some affinity with the more Alexandrian approach to exegesis. The Alexandrian tradition of Clement and Origen was more mystical, more contemplative, more meditative in approach, less sure of answers, more speculative, less debate oriented. The aim was to be still, wait and listen, to quiet the busy mind and be receptive. Alexandria was a major centre of Christianity in the Patristic era, and Origen was the most important theologian and exegete of his time. The goal of the allegorical-mystical approach to the Bible was participation and mystical union with God. Gregory of Nyssa developed and clarified Origen’s approach and highlighted how this mystical approach to the Bible has life giving qualities. The soul longs for depth and reality, and the Bible, when rightly interpreted, is but a portal into such life giving springs. The goal is a stilling of the restless heart and an ongoing experience of peace in God and the church. The Alexandrian approach to exegesis need not collide with the approach of Antioch, but these approaches do differ both in method and destination.
Hans Boersma (and many within the ressourcement movement) is, in different ways, attempting to reclaim the older mystical, contemplative and Alexandrian way of knowing and being. Wright and Piper, although differing in conclusions embody the Antioch way and method. Wright has debated with Marcus Borg about how the Bible should be interpreted, and he now does the same thing with Packer and Piper. But, is a rational debate about how the text should be interpreted in a literal-grammatical-contextual manner the only way to approach the Bible, experience of God and community? The Alexandrian tradition does part paths with the Antioch tradition on this point. It is not a case of either-or, of course, but more a case of the best means to know God and live such a vision in this wild world.
There are reasons that those like Boersma do not enter the sort of fray that Wright and Piper do—much hinges on the site of interior illumination, insight and wisdom. I get a sense of déjà vu when I heed both sides of the exegetical approaches to the Bible: Antioch or Alexandria? Which and why?
Postscript
There is the possibility of uniting a subtler reformed and evangelical exegetical approach with the more catholic and contemplative approach to exegesis in the writings and life of Eugene Peterson and Thomas Merton. A reading of Peterson’s Eat This Book: A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading and Merton’s New Seeds of Contemplation or Contemplative Prayer are a fine way to begin this journey.
Ron Dart
Dear Ron,
Remarkable connections, as usual. I enjoy your ability to zoom back to see the wider angle in which a particular debate is enfolded, how the debaters may in fact be related, and what their more ancient lineage is.
My two cents:
First, I come from an education where the literal-grammatical-historical was held high as THE conservative evangelical hermeneutic. Anything else was suspect and broad-brushed as liberal. Many in that tradition also insisted on verbal plenary inspiration that included an every-word-inerrancy (though we denied charges of a dictation theory). We would have said, ‘every word was God-breathed as holy men of God were borne along by the Spirit.’ (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21). Where we took the Antiochian approach over the edge was in a hermeneutic that claimed to take the genres seriously BUT backfired by demanding that any Scripture that COULD be taken literally MUST be taken literally. I don’t need to tell you how this pre-empted a proper read of the creation narratives in Gen. 1-2 or the millennium visions of Rev. 20.
What we didn’t realize (and what you are suggesting) is how that approach completely caves in to modernist-rationalist assumptions. In fact, Leo Strauss traces this modern approach to Spinoza who he believes actually set up this system of interpretation with the intention of appearing very faithful and careful in his treatment of Scripture, but subtly and purposely creating a scientific method that makes the Bible subject to science and the hermeneutical scientist. It enables us, further, to contain the revelation of the Word to a Bible-sized box that we stand over and master and to which we apply rules that work on every other piece of literature. Even if we claim the Bible is a source of revelation, we thus treat it in fact as an object to be scrutinized and dissected in the laboratories of our seminaries.
Is this kind of literalism really taking the Scriptures seriously? I would argue that it fundamentally contradicts Paul’s assertion in 1 Cor. 2 that the to rightly understand the spiritual thoughts (revelation) that had been imbedded or expressed in spiritual words (Scripture) absolutely requires the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not merely make us better at l-g-h science. Rather, the Spirit must illumine our hearts (‘let there be light’ – 2 Cor. 4) so that we can see (lit. ‘behold’) the revelation that came to the authors who then witnessed to that revelation in human words and within human cultures.
My belief is that Origen’s allegorical approach (only one layer of his larger system), was not simply spiritualizing on a whim everything one came across in the text. His critics, in accusing him of excessive allegorization, typically pointed to his commentaries on Gen. 1-3, where we are once again realizing as he did that the story is not about six literal days of twenty-four hour periods.
Instead, he was attempting to work through at least three things that we must ponder afresh: a. To take genres seriously, including the Bible’s occasional use of ‘myth,’ instead of buying into the modern fallacy that myth does not communicate truth. b. To explore spiritual meanings in texts that, if now taken literally, contradict Christ’s Gospel commands (e.g. the conquest narratives). c. To actually believe that illumination is essential for us to move ‘beneath’ the surface meaning or ‘first reading’ of a passage in order to access the realm of revelation.
Back to the people you’ve mentioned. Among the modern Antiochians, I think N.T. Wright differs from my first teachers in that he knows when to drop the ‘literal’ wherever the symbolic is clearly intended. Nor do I think he’s bound by fundamentalist definitions of ‘inerrancy’. On the other hand, he takes the ‘historical’ far beyond anyone in our camp, which is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because in the third quest for the historical Jesus, he may win the day on behalf of conservative theologians in his defence of Christ’s life, death and resurrection as historical facts (and not just allegorical truths). But it can also be a curse because it places a very heavy weight of interpretation on background research and speculative reconstructions to which we have little access. This is a problem because the way the Scripture portrays interpretation and illumination, the keys are to be found in a. the text itself and b. in the work of the Spirit.
Here I am referring to the commentaries of Karl Barth but more so, Brevard Childs and his ‘canonical contextual’ hermeneutic. His point is that the first context of any text is NOT the original historical setting (which so often we do not know) nor the original author (who often wrote long after the events and through a series of redactions). The first context is the Canon itself in its final form and as received by the people of God as authoritative for their community (and ours). In other words, the key to any interpretation has been left for us in the text itself. In fact, where historical details and context have been expunged from the text, this is by design, so that we will let that go and attend to the words as they speak to us. We are not meant to overhear an ancient prophet speaking to an ancient audience and then apply principles to our lives if the shoe fits. Rather, Nahum, for example, removes references to the defeat of Nineveh so that we will fill in those blanks with our enemies when we read the book: your day is coming cancer, your day is coming divorce, your day is coming war–God will have the last word and you will be no more. Instead of dissecting supposed historical circumstances, as far as is possible, we let the text speak for itself.
Having said all that, I get the sense that even the canonical-contextual approach can still be within the Antiochian stable of approaches, though perhaps also a waypoint on our way to Alexandria.
As for Alexandria, thank you Ron for pointing out the names, ancient and modern, associated with that tradition. Sticklers may discard Origen (prematurely) but Gregory of Nyssa is no one to be trifled with. By his role in the final form of the Nicene Creed, he defines whether we are in the orthodox faith rather than the reverse. But also, I hope we can come to grips with how carefully but generously the Alexandrians were about engaging with the Greek philosophers. It is fashionable today to speak in terms of Platonism infecting Christianity and the need to purge our theology of any vestiges of ‘platonic dualism’ (as if that were the same thing as Gnosticism). I would argue that the Alexandrian tradition thoroughly and wisely plundered the best of Plato’s thought but more than that, recognized his influence all over the New Testament. To remove anything that smells of Platonism from our faith, one best be prepared to take their scissors to the Bible: say goodbye to everything written by John, most of Hebrews and half of Paul. Alexandria can teach us, not just to engage Plato, but how to enter inter-faith dialogue that waters down nothing but applies the Word of Christ in evangelism while listening well for the true light that others have found in their quest for God.
What I am hearing here is that to explore modern Alexandrian hermeneutics, we might start with Peterson, Merton, and Boersma, but also Balthasar and others in the Nouvelle Theologie movement. Thanks Ron, for raising this.