| Theological Studies: Scriptural Interpretation
Alvin Shaul Oord, TH453 Essay #1 September 7, 2005 What role should Scripture have in constructive theology given that the Bible is interpreted in diverse ways? Scripture, properly defined in the context of its use and purpose, should at all times be instrumental in the formation of ones theology. We define theology in the most basic of terms as �words about God� (theos-logos). Thus, it should never be difficult to center ones theological thoughts and preferences in the Bible, which can be termed the words of God. Though not inerrant, the words of God never fail us; rather, it is us who fail the words of God. It is our minuteness, our humanness, and our inability to fully comprehend the mind and heart of God that separate us from God�s truth. It will not be said that there is but one true meaning to all of Scripture, for this would but emphasize our weaknesses. However, if we are to make a theological claim involving Scripture, we must not be satisfied with maintaining an ignorant, incomprehensive state of being. That is, if we wish to develop a systematic theology of our own, we must work toward such a goal through deep study of not only Scripture, but also the traditions of the Church, our experiences in life, and the reason portrayed through our decision making. Throughout history there have obviously been disputes in the Church concerning the true meaning and even the authority of the Scriptures. Because of such disputes, reformations took place that split the Christian Church over and over again. There are two principal reasons that such splits took place. First, splits took place because of disagreements in theology. Someone or some group of people saw what they believed to be an error in the teachings and/or lifestyles of their predecessors. They thus sought to correct that error by forming their own church, either on their own, or by the force of their followers. The second reason new traditions arise is not because of a �wrong act� or �bad theology� within the Church, but rather that a specific area of ministry was not being emphasized (e.g. reaching the poor and homeless). These are defined so that we may understand that varying interpretations of Scripture affect(ed) more the former than the latter. The first such split to take place was of course the Catholic Church in conversation with Martin Luther. Perhaps the most influential of the disputes between the Catholics and the Lutherans was the placement of the Church on an equal platform with the Scriptures. It is our task in systematic theology, to keep the Scriptures at the forefront of the discussions. If at any time we begin to value Church tradition and history, experience, and reason above the Scriptures, we then have lost sight of the original diagnosis of theology (words about God) finding its strength in Scripture (the words of God). Since we now have an understanding that Scripture should be at the forefront of all theological study, let us focus on the diversity of Scriptural interpretation. First, we should broaden our definition of theology to include both �words about God� and �words about man in relation to God� as did Luther and Calvin. They are inseparable as such and adequate theology cannot be practiced without taking this into account (Dunning 25). Since we know that diversity in Scriptural interpretation has taken place for hundreds of years, it should never be expected that one final consensus will ever be reached. However, as systematic theologians, this is exactly what we are trying to achieve. Our ultimate systematic theology would be that which is fully and completely accepted with all confidence as that which correctly interprets all biblical matters relevant to our salvation. Additionally, biblical interpretation, to be practiced most accurately, should be done in light of an overriding norm throughout Scripture. Dunning provides the norms of justification by faith and sanctification by faith as seen in the context of prevenient grace. When all interpretation is done with these in mind, adequate study may be achieved. Why do we have differing interpretations? Every theologian in affected by his or her location. This is brought to view in several manners. First are the historical and contemporary communities of faith. That is, how has the community around the theologian interpreted Scripture both in the past and the present? The theologian�s ethnicity, gender and economic state can affect how he or she interprets Scripture (e.g. an African-American from the South might interpret the passages in the New Testament concerning slavery quite differently than would a white person from the Northwest). Although we find our focus in Systematic Theology, there are other theologies such as Historical, Biblical, and Philosophical Theology that change completely the focus with which interpretation is practiced (Lecture, 8/26/05). With such a list of variances within theological study, it is plain to see that varying interpretations of the Scriptures must follow. Although our task is to develop a systematic theology, we cannot fault Scripture or even the interpretations of Scripture, if they have been done intellectually, in forming an incongruent theology with our own. To each one his or her study of the Scriptures must be tested in his or her heart and with reason, experience and tradition. Interpretations that cannot withstand at least two of these probably need to be rethought. For the systematic theologian, the interpretation of Scripture should ultimately come through �revelation, which interprets God�s self-disclosure as occurring primarily through interpreted events and always in a timeful way� (Dunning 56). Dunning also states concerning biblical study as a source of theology: The systematic theologian must first proceed with the work of theological exegesis and then utilize his findings to give direction to his work in constructing an organic, homogeneous system of theology while oftentimes employing nonbiblical categories in order to address the contemporary situation. This is the normative source by which all other sources of theology must be evaluated and tested (76). Most errors in biblical interpretation will take place because something is being emphasized above the Scriptures. Pinnock states that �any authentically theological model must have biblical backing and resonance...the open view of God takes Scripture seriously and does not set aside important biblical metaphors just because they do not fit the traditional system� (19). One might conversely argue that nothing could then warrant the untheologicalness of a given piece Scripture for any reason. However, as Wesleyans, we believe that there are inevitably sections of Scripture that are more theologically important and sound than others. The space between sound and unsound can be formed by either inaccuracies or the inapplicableness to modern situation. Eventually, the accurateness of theological study with it core focus as the Scriptures comes back to the idea of overriding norms within Scripture, and interpreting Scripture in light of those norms. The original texts of the Bible will never change because they are just that, original. Prior to the last one hundred years or so, disagreements regarding translation and interpretation were done solely through teaching and preaching. Today, however, interpretive discrepancies give us new translations of the Scriptures seemingly constantly. As pastors and theologians of the twenty-first century we must at least be aware of the most literal translations from the Greek and Hebrew so that when theological study confronts us, we have God�s true words in grasp. Theological norms concerning Scripture must be based on accurate Scripture. And since our theological study must be done considering these theological norms, let us make sure we know what our sources are. God is forever larger than us in every way, but we should, as systematic theologians, always try to discover God�s truth with all possible astuteness and unparalleled devotion. Bibliography Dunning, H. Ray. Grace, Faith and Holiness. Beacon Hill Press, Kansas City, Missouri, 1988. Pinnock, Clark H. Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God�s Openness. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2001. |