One of the questions I'm asking of the various theologies doing the rounds is whether they resemble the bible's witness. However, the question of what a 21st century "biblical" theology looks like has caused me to wander off and explore multiple issues surrounding the concepts of revelation (hence the multi-part answers! 1; 2a; 2b). This time I’m thinking about how ancient bible texts could be “timeless”. Warning: This post is long and theological.
Christian theology is based on the claim that both New and Old Testament are in some sense a trustworthy source for our knowledge about salvation in Jesus Christ. These texts are time-bound because they are ancient (see 2b: the time-bound story) But if we don't reject the possibility of God revealing himself through time-bound texts on principle, the New Testament's implicit authority and claim that the Old Testament texts somehow speak to new generations yet to be born, can be explored.
In what sense do texts bridge the divide?
The NT reflects on the way the OT functions. Our interpretation of Scripture is surely "christological" (Lk 24,27), and certainly of a different quality as we are led by the Spirit (2 Cor 3,15-16).
But this still doesn't answer the "how" question very well. The NT sees the OT encouraging, endurance-inspiring, warning, correcting, teaching and training Christians, today (1 Tim 3,16; Rom 15,4; 1 Cor 10:11; Heb 3,7ff) So it seems to me that the way the OT functions is that we, addressed as the people of God, are "asked" by Scripture to think and feel our way into the situation of God's people then and apply this to our lives.
If this is the way Scripture is meant to function, then the explanation of the context of Scripture for its original hearers will play an important role. We have to "get inside" the hopes and fears of the exodus-people, wandering in the desert. This time-bound message, addressed to an ancient people, becomes a timeless message when we let God address us as the people of God and identify with them - in this sense, the words were not just written for them, but for us. (Romans 4:23-24).
Systematizing Scripture today
If God has chosen to reveal himself and witness to his great acts in time-bound texts, then there is a sense that our systematic theology should reflect something of the narrative of Scripture. Themes like Creation, Exodus, Covenant, Exile should shape our systematic theology. The bible just isn’t “Calvin all messed up”; God chose to go the “messed-up”, time-bound way. Whilst system is good, because it means we get some orientation, systematic theology should be “narrative” in some sense, which means: “it tells the story.”
In this sense, Christian theology doesn’t have to reinvent itself all the time. The story we have is something given. This is an important starting point, the basis of all the hard work of contextualisation. Christian theology will always involve talking about something given.
Yet in analogy to our discussion of revelation earlier (2b), systematic theology today must be a time-bound, 21st-Century systematic theology if it is to communicate to a particular people in a particular time and place – systematic theology is in this sense dependent upon the culture it speaks into whilst offering a critique of the culture.
The desire to be “relevant” is in this sense justified because time-bound Scripture "wants" to speak to generations yet unborn. For this reason, while the results of some of the most liberal theologians end up being too far removed from the story of Scripture, their drive to communicate the faith to their own generation needs to be honoured.
So how do we discern what is in tune with Scripture and what is horribly discordant?
The role of the Holy Spirit
Should we forget methods here? … A good point to be made here is that the Holy Spirit opens blind eyes and deaf ears to understand what God wants to say through Scripture to each new generation. Yet this good point can be pushed to such an extreme that all method is rejected and the interpretation becomes entirely subjective. The work of the Holy Spirit is not so much on the level of giving us "new information" but about him giving us a "new heart."
An entirely subjective interpretation (“the Holy Spirit told me it means X”) means that no-one’s argument can hold any sway with me. This can be potentially tyrannous, because then the "right" interpretation cannot be patiently argued for any more – it can only be defined or promoted by the strongest, the loudest, or the most popular.
Trusting in the work of the Holy Spirit, the task of interpretation is hard work and involves proposals and arguments and counter-arguments!
The idea of Christ as the centre of the Scriptures
One method of interpretation that has been particularly popular since Luther is the idea that Scripture and the doctrine we find in it can be measured by the principle that Scripture has a centre: Jesus Christ. Using this method, Luther relegated James and Hebrews to the back of his bible, because they weren’t “central” enough.
The statement as it stands is correct – Scripture is about Jesus Christ. But the statement can be misused. It suddenly becomes very easy to say "this or that part of your theology does not correspond to Christ – let’s chuck it out”. Yet the definition of “Christ” has already been defined along the lines of (say) South American liberation theology, British conservative evangelical theology, or German liberal Enlightenment theology.
We need to check to see if our Christ-lens is not just an Enlightenment-Christ-lens or a Southern Baptist-Christ-lens or a Liberation-Theology-Christ-lens and realise that the formal principle of all theologies is Scripture, because, with the exception of a few lines by a few ancient historians, all we know of Christ is in Scripture.
So the idea of “Christ as the centre”, while remaining a helpful way of approaching the Scriptures, particularly in regards to the Old Testament, doesn’t provide us with a short-cut method in the hard task of interpretation and discernment. The idea can indeed be simply a way of sidelining a very important part of the story.
The role of Tradition
So what could help us to discern, methodically? When starting out on this task of interpretation, it’s a bit much to jump straight from the 21st Century back to the texts. The good news is that we’re not the first to try and jump back and understand the texts.
Our method of interpretation isn't entirely objective – we start with our own presuppositions and we stand on the shoulders of giants - we live in a tradition. And we rest on that tradition - not that we don't question it – the various traditions of the church are contradictory, so we must question them. But we rest on tradition - we live in it. Interpretation involves standing in the river of tradition – one can’t pretend to be the first person to have read the bible.
So if the story is timeless – if it speaks to all generations – it is always in light of and in awareness of tradition. The Protestant standard of “sola scriptura” (Scripture alone) is not about throwing away tradition - if we do that, we do not have any reference points - we have no language to build on. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is that which fundamentally corrects and reshapes all tradition. It means that the church is semper reformanda – always reforming.
After all that, I should draw this post to a suitable close.
Conclusion: a triple-listening
(in conscious dependence upon John Stott, who basically said the same thing):
Our theology will be listening to the story the time-bound texts tell, helping us to identify with the people of God. Our theology will be listening to the way the story has been heard over centuries past by the people of God. And our theology will be listening to the stories the world has to tell so that we can re-tell God’s story and understand what it means to be God’s people today.
Coincidentally, recently I was made aware of a new “narrative” statement of faith composed by The Crowded House. Perhaps it will inspire others - see what you think!
