Fifth in a series on In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood by Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden. Click here for the first post.
Miller and Soden are scholars. And when you hear scholars begin to talk about figures of speech, allusions, motifs, and theological positions, you just know they are going to reference some kinds of knowledge they believe they possess and from which they believe you can gain benefit . . . if only you will listen to them.
I am reminded of some heated comments by a swath of Christian homeschoolers two years ago. They were enraged by a controversy that arose as a result of things Ken Ham had said about Dr. Peter Enns at a homeschool conference. (Dr. Jay Wile publicly protested Ham's behavior, and, then, the sponsors of the conferences where Ham made his comments eventually placed sanctions upon Ham. The majority of homeschoolers who commented on these events seemed enraged first, by Wile's comments and, then, by the sanctions placed upon Ham. As Anne Elliott interpreted these things, there would be no problem if only everyone took "a strong stand on the Bible’s young-earth, seven-day, literal creation account.")
I noted at the time some of the things that various commentators said. Among the comments, one that most struck me was Kathy Bryson's statement, in response to Elliott and intended to be favorable toward Ham and opposed to Enns, that "I do not need a man with a degree from a manmade school to explain to me how I should read my Bible." I was also intrigued by Elliott's subsequent post, I Can Know Truth, in which she seemed to suggest that any calls for moderation or tentativeness in the way one states one's views . . . --any such calls are some kind of attack on truth or attack on knowledge. (You can see my posts about Bryson's and Elliott's posts here and here.)
My plea at this point: As much as we may be frustrated by the fact; as much as we may desire to connect directly with the original meaning of a passage; and, finally, as much as we may believe in the perspicuity of Scripture: we need, at least, to listen to those who have studied more than we have. We need to listen to scholars. We may disagree with them, call their opinions and data into question, even think they are faithless disbelievers. But, ultimately, we are not able, as Bryson suggests, to read our Bibles without the aid of "a man with a degree from a manmade school." If nothing else, it is men and women--usually with degrees from manmade schools--who give us our English translations of the Bible (from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). It is men and women--again, usually, with degrees from manmade schools--who provide us the textual aids, the glossaries, the dictionaries, the grammars, the commentaries, and so on and so forth, that educate and inform us how we ourselves might best translate or interpret various texts.
So we are dependent on such men and women.
Miller and Soden caution us (I believe rightly):
Therefore, however much you may be prejudiced against those with whom you are sure you disagree, I urge you to avoid closed-mindedness and at least listen to what they have to say. Find out what knowledge they have to bring to the table. After you have listened, then feel free to respond as you will.
If you insulate yourself from scholarly discussion, you may find yourself--or your children--ambushed by arguments and data about which you have kept yourself ignorant . . . arguments and data that, if you had been properly aware and prepared, would cause you no difficulty but that (because you have determined to remain ignorant, because you have deliberately refused to prepare) will leave you and your children vulnerable to ambush, vulnerable to destruction of faith.
I testify to you here: I did not willfully remain ignorant of alternative views. But I was uneducated. And when knowledge from "the other side" happened to come in, unbidden, upon me, I realized that Young-Earth Creationism--the perspective I had been advocating--had some answering to do. And, sadly, for the better part of 14 years, the leaders of the Young-Earth Creationist movement have failed to provide any of the answers I have sought.
No Old-Earth Creationists have satisfied me, either.
But the questions have never gone away.
Now, after more than a decade of "wandering in the wilderness," I believe I have received from Miller and Soden what no one else has provided: some credible, foundational answers to many of the fundamental questions that neither any of the Young-Earth Creationists nor any of the Old-Earth Creationists with whom I am familiar have been able to provide. And Miller and Soden have been able to provide their answers partially because they are willing to address data that neither the Old- nor Young-Earth Creationists with whom I am familiar have ever confronted. Miller and Soden have confronted problems related to "figures of speech, . . . allusions, . . . common motifs, beliefs, and theological positions" of the culture in which Genesis was written.
And what came out of that confrontation is something I didn't expect.
*****
Miller and Soden conclude Chapter 6 of In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood with the following:If the original edition of Genesis was presented to Israel after their exodus from Egypt, and if it was written in an early form of the Hebrew language to people who lived hundreds of years in Egyptian culture, then we should expect it to reflect a concept of the universe and a worldview different from ours. We should not assume, without examining the cultural context, that we understand figures of speech or allusions to common motifs, beliefs, and theological positions of their day. (p. 73)Oh, boy! You know where this is going, don't you?
Miller and Soden are scholars. And when you hear scholars begin to talk about figures of speech, allusions, motifs, and theological positions, you just know they are going to reference some kinds of knowledge they believe they possess and from which they believe you can gain benefit . . . if only you will listen to them.
I am reminded of some heated comments by a swath of Christian homeschoolers two years ago. They were enraged by a controversy that arose as a result of things Ken Ham had said about Dr. Peter Enns at a homeschool conference. (Dr. Jay Wile publicly protested Ham's behavior, and, then, the sponsors of the conferences where Ham made his comments eventually placed sanctions upon Ham. The majority of homeschoolers who commented on these events seemed enraged first, by Wile's comments and, then, by the sanctions placed upon Ham. As Anne Elliott interpreted these things, there would be no problem if only everyone took "a strong stand on the Bible’s young-earth, seven-day, literal creation account.")
I noted at the time some of the things that various commentators said. Among the comments, one that most struck me was Kathy Bryson's statement, in response to Elliott and intended to be favorable toward Ham and opposed to Enns, that "I do not need a man with a degree from a manmade school to explain to me how I should read my Bible." I was also intrigued by Elliott's subsequent post, I Can Know Truth, in which she seemed to suggest that any calls for moderation or tentativeness in the way one states one's views . . . --any such calls are some kind of attack on truth or attack on knowledge. (You can see my posts about Bryson's and Elliott's posts here and here.)
My plea at this point: As much as we may be frustrated by the fact; as much as we may desire to connect directly with the original meaning of a passage; and, finally, as much as we may believe in the perspicuity of Scripture: we need, at least, to listen to those who have studied more than we have. We need to listen to scholars. We may disagree with them, call their opinions and data into question, even think they are faithless disbelievers. But, ultimately, we are not able, as Bryson suggests, to read our Bibles without the aid of "a man with a degree from a manmade school." If nothing else, it is men and women--usually with degrees from manmade schools--who give us our English translations of the Bible (from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). It is men and women--again, usually, with degrees from manmade schools--who provide us the textual aids, the glossaries, the dictionaries, the grammars, the commentaries, and so on and so forth, that educate and inform us how we ourselves might best translate or interpret various texts.
So we are dependent on such men and women.
Miller and Soden caution us (I believe rightly):
Groupthink [a longstanding traditional way of thinking] isn't always erroneous, but it is powerfully binding and often emotionally threatened by challenge.So, they are saying, in the name of Scripture's authority and for the sake of Scripture's authority, let us listen to those who interpret Scripture differently than we do . . . to ensure we have really "heard" Scripture for what it truly says!
In Christian circles, groupthink may apply to the distinctive doctrines that bind together churches and denominations. It may be the way we baptize or the way we observe the Lord's Supper. It may be a distinctive doctrine about the second coming of Christ or a unique interpretation of the book of Revelation. It may even be a literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1. . . .
As Christians, we need to help people think biblically, not just according to a group's perceived authority but because of Scripture's authority. . . . The only way to break through groupthink is to allow--even to welcome--questions or challenges to prevailing beliefs. (pp. 30, 31)
Therefore, however much you may be prejudiced against those with whom you are sure you disagree, I urge you to avoid closed-mindedness and at least listen to what they have to say. Find out what knowledge they have to bring to the table. After you have listened, then feel free to respond as you will.
If you insulate yourself from scholarly discussion, you may find yourself--or your children--ambushed by arguments and data about which you have kept yourself ignorant . . . arguments and data that, if you had been properly aware and prepared, would cause you no difficulty but that (because you have determined to remain ignorant, because you have deliberately refused to prepare) will leave you and your children vulnerable to ambush, vulnerable to destruction of faith.
I testify to you here: I did not willfully remain ignorant of alternative views. But I was uneducated. And when knowledge from "the other side" happened to come in, unbidden, upon me, I realized that Young-Earth Creationism--the perspective I had been advocating--had some answering to do. And, sadly, for the better part of 14 years, the leaders of the Young-Earth Creationist movement have failed to provide any of the answers I have sought.
No Old-Earth Creationists have satisfied me, either.
But the questions have never gone away.
Now, after more than a decade of "wandering in the wilderness," I believe I have received from Miller and Soden what no one else has provided: some credible, foundational answers to many of the fundamental questions that neither any of the Young-Earth Creationists nor any of the Old-Earth Creationists with whom I am familiar have been able to provide. And Miller and Soden have been able to provide their answers partially because they are willing to address data that neither the Old- nor Young-Earth Creationists with whom I am familiar have ever confronted. Miller and Soden have confronted problems related to "figures of speech, . . . allusions, . . . common motifs, beliefs, and theological positions" of the culture in which Genesis was written.
And what came out of that confrontation is something I didn't expect.
Interview of Soden on Stand to Reason radio... http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/one-moment-from-eternity#.UdjVfyinbD0
ReplyDeleteThe SL ladies were reminiscing about the good old days when John H hung around (before my time), so I thought I'd pop over and see what was on your blog. Last night I read the first chapter of Zondervan's Five Views of Biblical Inerrancy (http://www.amazon.com/Five-Views-Biblical-Inerrancy-Counterpoints-ebook/dp/B00BW2J4NO/) in which Al Mohler articulates the standard inerrancy view you hear in the young earth circles. It has become increasingly interesting to me how inextricably linked the two are. I think it relates to the kinds of observations you are making above about the hostile way people respond when their literalist "plain meaning" interpretation is called into question by biblical scholarship, archaeology, natural sciences, etc. As Merrick and Garret point out in the intro to the book, for traditional Evangelicals like Mohler, "inerrancy is an axiom- a necessary truth that follows upon a belief in God's truthfulness. Here inerrancy is not a conclusion drawn from exahaustive investigation into the veracity of Scripture's claims, but a RULE for reading Scripture in ways consistent with the conviction that God is truthful. Inerrancy establishes both a set of expectations about the text and the condition of sound readings of the text." So when a scholar or a scientist comes along and questions an interpretation and says, "I don't think this means what you think it means" they get treated as if they are calling the very truthfulness of God into question, because the inerrant Word of God is conflated with the individual's interpretation, and his/her understanding=God's truth. No alternate interpretation is permissible, because the very act of suggesting a alternate violates the condition of "sound reading." So you get Mohler saying (in response to the consensus of 100 years of archaeological investigation into Jericho that does not support the face value historicity of Joshua 6) "The CSBI [Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy] says...that a commitment to the truthfulness of the Bible requires us to affirm that Scripture is without fault or error 'in all its teaching' specifically including 'the events of world history.' According to article 18, texts making historical claims are to be believed as historically true, and no effort to dehistoricize or to deny the full truthfulness of the text is legitimate...The point is that I do not allow ANY line of evidence from outside the Bible to nullify to the slightest degree the truthfulness of any text in all that the text asserts and claims." Why would you have any motivation to listen to a scholar or scientist or other expert if your a priori commitment and obligation (required by your understanding of inerrancy) is to reject anything they say that is different than what you already know/believe. It is an inescapable Catch 22.
ReplyDeleteWowzie, Christy! How insightful . . . and beautifully stated. . . . And, though I appreciate the MOTIVES behind Mohler's comments, how distressing to read! If, as you note, inerrancy is an AXIOM, then no evidence can be brought to bear; and, according to advocates like Mohler--or, as you note, presuppositionalist, concordist young-earthers like Ham--no one should look at outside evidence to modify one's interpretation of a passage . . . except when it is convenient . . . or when the modification of interpretation was done 500 years ago (as with Galileo and Copernicus).
ReplyDeleteThanks for writing!
None of it is my brilliant idea, it’s all lifted from the book I’m reading. I was unaware until last night that the young earth stance is required by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which has been the go-to definition for Evangelicals. In 2004 it was adopted as the official stance of the Evangelical Theological Society, though this year I think they decided to open up a discussion on it, since it was the topic of the meeting a month or so ago. The CSBI explicitly says in article 12, “We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.”
ReplyDeleteSo you have a document that many people view as establishing THE Evangelical stance toward Scripture, effectively functioning as a boundary
marker and litmus test for true Evangelical theology, and many people interpret it a calling the faithful to be just like Ken Ham. No matter what science reveals, it is only being used PROPERLY when it affirms the young earth view (because that is THE teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood).
In my discussions with people about young earth creationism in the past, I made the mistake of thinking it was primarily about science. I’m thinking more and more, it’s not. It’s about an inerrancy view that does not allow evidence that challenges the pre-determined “truth,” and is immediately suspect of any hermeneutic or exegetical strategy that offers a new interpretation that harmonizes with scientific evidence. To entertain those
ideas is to compromise your identity as a Bible-believing Evangelical.
I had always thought of origins as a peripheral, non-essential doctrine issue. But if your origins stance is inextricably tied to your inerrancy view, and inerrancy is the one absolute non-negotiable at the very top of every Evangelical doctrinal statement, then origins isn’t a peripheral thing anymore. It’s non-negotiable too. And all of the sudden it’s not as big a tent as some of us thought, at least from some people’s perspective.