The New Atheism
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 54, No. 1 – Fall 2011
Managing Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
Edited by Gary T. Meadors. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009. Softcover, $19.99.
Few events can be more confusing or discouraging to new Christians than to hear two individuals declaring that the Bible teaches opposing positions, or that the Bible does not address an issue at all. Many Christians have realized that the Bible can be treated “like a dummy in the hands of a ventriloquist” (7). Consequently, there has been growing interest in the question not of what the Bible teaches, but of how the Bible teaches. Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology presents answers to the latter question in the popular Counterpoint format. Influenced by I. Howard Marshall’s Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), this book is unique in the Counterpoint series in that the positions discussed are by no means fixed representatives—the field is still developing. Howard’s own principled model makes an appearance, but the diversity of the field is made evident in that editor Gary Meadors invited three additional scholars to reflect on the given views, and those scholars presented additional views.
In order to appreciate these various views more clearly, the reader should know that “beyond” does not imply the insufficiency of Scripture. As Meadors notes, when a church member greets a friends with a handshake rather than a holy kiss, he or she has moved beyond the Bible. Any time a pastor preaches a text of Scripture, he has moved beyond the Bible. These authors agree about the authority of the text; they disagree about how the Bible applies to contemporary issues. Most importantly, they disagree about the fundamental nature of Scripture: is it a reference manual for life or spirituality? a script? a roadmap? an enculturated story? The four contributors engage in a very lively (and valuable) debate over this important question.
“A Principlizing Model,” Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Reviewed by Chris Johnson
Walter Kaiser presents the first view, the “principalizing model,” which reflects similar sentiments expressed in his well-known Toward an Exegetical Theology. In order to detail his basic approach, Kaiser first defines principalization: “To ‘principalize’ is to [re]state the author’s propositions, arguments, narrations, and illustrations in timeless abiding truths with special focus on the application of those truths to the current needs of the Church” (22). He is quick to distinguish prinicipalization, which derives its conclusions from a careful study of the text, from allegorizing or spiritualizing. Following this explanation, Kaiser outlines how an interpreter would implement his method.
First, the interpreter must determine the subject of the passage in question (22). Second, the interpreter must determine the emphasis of the passage and also note any connections between its words, phrases, and clauses (23). Following this, the passage can be expressed as a propositional principle, regardless of genre. Kaiser offers a “Ladder of Abstraction” as a paradigm for moving from a specific biblical example to a general principle and then to a specific contemporary application. The text of Scripture provides the general principles. From the general principle the interpreter is able to draw out the underlying theological or moral principle and finally apply this to a specific contemporary situation. Kaiser demonstrates how his proposal functions by working through questions including euthanasia, the role of women in the church, homosexuality, and slavery, as well as abortion and stem cell research.
Kaiser closes his chapter with a brief interaction with I. Howard Marshall’s Beyond the Bible. Kaiser rejects Marshall’s conclusions by arguing that the biblical writers and early Christians really did not go beyond the text. Kaiser points to the idea of progressive revelation (but not the destructive forms of it) as a key to understanding what takes place between the Old and New Testaments. Kaiser argues that what some might call development and human discovery is actually the perfection of God’s revealed truth (47).
Kaiser’s contribution is helpful in that he seeks to anchor theology firmly in Scripture. Although addressed indirectly, Kaiser’s approach reveals a high view of Scripture. He wholeheartedly rejects the notion that the Bible is insufficient to address the complexity of modern ethical problems. He acknowledges that many modern dilemmas do not receive direct treatment in Scripture while also affirming that interpreters should not consider God’s Word silent on these concerns.
In spite of his positive contributions, Kaiser’s work does have some limitations. First, Kaiser devotes the bulk of his essay to test cases of his method. While he ought to be commended for showing how his proposal functions practically, one example would have been sufficient. In his preoccupation with the practical results of his method, Kaiser shifts the focus of the essay too closely upon the contemporary issues, while his conclusions on some of the issues are also particularly unsatisfying. For example, Kaiser’s discussion on women and the church does illustrate an application of his principalizing approach, but he undermines his position with the brevity of his treatment. His conclusions on the role of women in the church satisfy his own convictions, but another interpreter could just as easily argue for the opposite viewpoint using Kaiser’s method. One’s conclusions then depend on the principles chosen.
Another weakness of Kaiser’s work is that his approach tends to downplay any differences between the various genres of Scripture. To be fair, Kaiser seems to make an effort to avoid doing this. He distinguishes between the various genres and there is no doubt that he understands the differences. Yet his approach tends to reduce a passage to a rigid summary statement. This is not to argue against propositions but only to say that Kaiser’s approach might lead an interpreter to miss unique aspects of the various genres in an effort to principalize a given passage.
Kaiser’s proposal lends much to commend itself. His use of specific examples of how his method works in practice is helpful for anyone wishing to adopt his method in their own exegetical work. His approach offers the preacher a constructive way to avoid the moralizing and allegory that can often appear when working through the narrative passages of Scripture (especially Old Testament narrative). Kaiser’s proposal also helps the interpreter engage other passages of the Old Testament that he might otherwise ignore. All in all, Kaiser’s work in this chapter is quite a useful tool for any exegete.
“A Redemptive-Historical Model,” Daniel M. Doriani. Reviewed by Billy Marsh
Daniel Doriani, senior pastor of Central Presbyterian Church and adjunct professor of New Testament at Covenant Seminary, presents doing theology in a “redemptive-historical model” (RHM) (75–76). In his first section, “Foundations for a Redemptive-Historical Interpretation,” Doriani situates the RHM within classical evangelicalism surveying its scriptural presuppositions concerning the authority, sufficiency, and clarity of Scripture. In addition, he envisions the task of biblical interpretation and application as one of “technical skill, art, and personal commitment” (76).
Section two, “The Redemptive-Historical Method and its Way Beyond the Sacred Page,” provides steps for doing theology beginning with exegesis and moving into theological interpretation and application. For Doriani, the interpreter seeks first the authorial intent with priority given to the writer’s main point. Second, his task is to synthesize the biblical data into a holistic theological reading of the Bible (84–85). Third, Doriani suggests that all Christian application should be understood through “the imitation of God/imitation of Christ motif” (86). And fourth, by highlighting the use of biblical narratives, he argues that these narratives ought to be viewed as paradigms for daily Christian living (87–88).
In his third section dedicated to surveying alternative approaches for going “beyond the sacred page,” Doriani does little more than briefly interact with the methodological fruits of the methods of I. H. Marshall and proponents of a trajectory or movement view of Scripture. Doriani’s fourth section entitled, “Going Beyond the Sacred Page through Casuistry,” encourages the use of “casuistry” for carefully moving beyond Scripture for constructing theology. He acknowledges the potential pitfalls of “casuistry”; nonetheless, Doriani sees the term’s appeal to a higher principle as beneficial for guidance through complex issues not directly addressed in Scripture.
In his final section, “Going Beyond the Sacred Page by Asking the Right Questions,” Doriani proffers four “questions the Bible endorses” to ask when applying Scripture’s teachings to everyday life: “What is my duty?” “What are the marks of a good character?” “What goals are worthy of my life energy?” “How can I gain a biblical worldview?” (102–03). For the remainder of his chapter, Doriani applies his “right” questions and his interpretive methodology to two controversial life-issues: gambling and women in the ministry.
Doriani’s contribution, although basic and orthodox in its presentation, affords instances that require critical evaluation. For example, within his first section, Doriani fails to give any real explanation of the distinctives of his model. In particular, the emphasis on “history” in his method’s title is never fully discussed. He does delve into the role of paradigmatic narratives for Christian application, but he does not clarify what he means by “redemptive-history” as the preferred way to perceive the Bible as canon. Doriani neglects to expound upon this fundamental feature in sufficient detail.
Doriani’s narrative approach is welcomed as a means of appropriating the character of Scripture, but weakened by his search for patterns within the biblical narratives. The discovery of patterns is helpful, but Doriani does not specify what constitutes a pattern. Moreover, is a series of patterns necessary to produce a norm or is a single occurrence sufficient (89)? Vanhoozer notes rightly in his response that here Doriani shifts from “prudence” into principalizing (130). Furthermore, when suggesting “casuistry” as another means of moving from the Bible to theology, Doriani’s appeal to higher principles seemed to depart from his narrative intent. With respect to his commitment to “the imitation of God/Christ motif,” “casuistry” needs to be brought into congruence with this form of application which Doriani identifies as the standard and goal of Christian character formation (86).
In conclusion, Doriani’s proposal is exactly what he says it is: “a call to return to diligent exegesis and the orthodoxies of interpretation” (118). One should respect Doriani’s commitment to a classical evangelical approach to Scripture, but the RHM itself finds insufficient treatment. The essay leaves the reader unsure as to why he or she ought to adopt the RHM in particular, notwithstanding the value of his theory of narrative for Christian ethics, which is not, however, reserved for Doriani’s approach alone. As a chapter in a Counterpoint book where one’s position is meant to achieve superiority and approval over other options, Doriani’s falls short of its potential to present a strong nuanced method, which is demonstrated by the fact that both Kaiser and Vanhoozer spend more time agreeing with him than not.
“A Drama-of-Redemption Model,” Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Reviewed by Michael Economidis
The title of Vanhoozer’s contribution to Gary Meador’s Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology is apt. As in his The Drama of Doctrine, Vanhoozer, Blanchard Professor of Theology at Wheaton College, is greatly interested in the analogy of theater to Bible interpretation and Christian life and the relatedness of speech to act. He sets the stage, so to speak, by noting the dramatic quality of the Christian faith and relating the various aspects of theological work to aspects of the theater (155–62). From there, he discusses the viability of considering interpretative functions as a subset of performance. He wants to affirm this viability and understand “the criterion for normative appropriation [as] a function of what I shall term the implied canonical reader,” i.e., a disciple (169). The goal of this appropriation is the Theodramatic Vision, or reading a passage wisely, which is a “demonstration of theodramatic understanding, . . . not to apply but to appropriate [the Bible’s] message” (170). It requires creativity on the part of the performer, and Vanhoozer provides measuring rods to protect against poor theological improvisation: the canon sense, the catholic sensibility, and the rule of love (179–84). He then offers two case studies, Mary and transsexuality, and sums up the entirety of his essay and method with the acronym AAA (attend, appraise, advance) (198).
Vanhoozer’s concept and method here have much to commend them. The theater analogy seems particularly helpful in that it emphasizes the great need on the part of believers and of the world as a whole for those believers to play their part in the ongoing drama of redemption (160). It should also be mentioned that Vanhoozer’s vision of a grand drama in which all believers participate and into which they may also be led by appropriating the world “in front of” the text (166) is quite appealing. One might take issue, though, with the apparent false dichotomy between what Vanhoozer calls “abstract truth” and “concrete wisdom-in-fact” (159, cf. 178, 203). Yet, to neglect the attainment of knowledge, “abstract (propositional) truth,” is to neglect an important aspect of interpretation, which is still a vital area of life the neglect of which can only hinder the “performative” variety of interpretation.
With this dichotomy of “mental” and “performative” interpretation in mind, one might also note that perhaps the philosophy of interpretation might be reversed and augmented in Vanhoozer such that performance and mentation could be viewed as species of the genus interpretation (165). Doriani rightly notes that Scripture offers examples of believers being taught worldviews and propositions. Such a view would result in a much broader, arguably more functional method that would better define the relationship between doctrine and ethics.
A second issue concerns Vanhoozer’s statement to the effect that, “Sacra pagina is profitable for sacra doctrina, which in turn is profitable for sacra vita (holy living)” (154). It seems that Vanhoozer reverses the final two in theory, yet his practice seems to reflect the order of the quote. To focus on the appropriation of the world in front of the text (158, 166, 170) would be to focus on sacra vita, would it not? Thereby, one’s focus in reading and interpreting would decidedly not be on sacra doctrina primarily. This all assumes, though, that “doctrine” is not doctrine in the formulaic sense but in the sense of principle-by-which-to-live. To live by Scripture, to appropriate the drama into one’s own life, necessitates “concrete” guides (principles?), to incorporate. One does not simply appropriate godly living by osmosis through reading. One reads, finds an example of how to live (principle), and incorporates (appropriates) that example into his life (159, 166–70, 172, 178–84, 198). Thus, ethical norms, as opposed to doctrines (formulas of belief), are the presuppositions of ethics. Yet, Vanhoozer does not distinguish between doctrines as ethical norms and doctrines as formulas of belief, so one wonders as to how Vanhoozer understands the process of interpretation correctly to function in light of his stated order and his practical usage.
One cannot, however, fault Vanhoozer’s correct emphasis on the interpretive
acting-out of the believer’s faith. And, above all else in his essay, the call for appropriation of the text should bring his readers’ focus back to a genre of interpretation that is often simply assumed, namely that interpretation demands submission on the part of the interpreter to immersion in the world of the text and to the authority thereby represented. Vanhoozer offers a complement to much of modern Bible study, yet it needs the steady, propositional support of traditional Bible study to provide anchorage.
“A Redemptive-Movement Model,” William J. Webb. Reviewed by Jonathan Wood
William J. Webb, known for his book Slaves, Women and Homosexuals, presents the Redemptive-Movement Model for moving from Scripture to theology. His contributions in Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology stands as a phrase of response in the conversation generated by his previous methodological assertions. This response comes to the reader’s attention in the section, “Correcting Misconceptions,” which may be summarized as Webb’s defense against the claims of his opponents that his approach endangers the verbal-plenary doctrine of revelation.
Webb argues that the task of the theologian is to go beyond the concrete specificity of the Bible lest he warrant accusation of stopping where the Bible stops. Webb’s model for moving beyond the Bible depends upon simultaneously understanding the text from the perspectives of the original culture, the reader’s culture, and the ultimate ethic projected by the spirit of the text. An essential part of Webb’s model is that the spirit of the text produces incremental movement from the cultural ethic toward the ultimate ethic. Biblical study should seek to discern this “movement meaning,” which in turn should “tug at our heartstrings and beckon us to go further” (217). The hermeneutic Webb employs rests upon a strong idea of accommodation in which God met individuals at the point they could comprehend incremental moral progress.
Webb rightly draws attention to the limitation of a mindset which operates under the rubric of going only where the Bible goes and stopping only where the Bible stops. He views this method as inadequate for developing theology in cultures subsequent to the formation of the canon. His arguments provide emphasis to the inherent necessity of thinking beyond the words of the Bible in the task of theological formation. Additionally, Webb’s approach rightly values cultural and historical context. However, this chapter raises several concerns.
First, it appears that Webb does not think that Scripture provides an ultimate ethic. Webb claims that the interpreter must look to the redemptive movement of the text to discover the trajectory on which one must continue to find the ultimate ethic. However, the definition of the redemptive movement in Scripture suffers from a vagueness that prevents the necessary boundaries by which trajectories springing from Scripture may be evaluated. The consequence of leaning so heavily on the redemptive trajectory of Scripture is compromising the biblical canon as final and closed revelation. Webb defends himself on this point by affirming the New Testament as God’s final revelation, yet he still perceives a distinction between the revelation of the New Testament and the implications of the redemptive-movement spirit of the text. The danger created is that such a hermeneutic for discerning the redemptive-movement element lacks interaction with the text as authoritative guide.
One manifestation of this is Webb’s dependence upon the authority of extrabiblical sources instead of the text of Scripture itself to bear out the trajectory. For example, the movement of slavery texts toward an ultimate ethic of abolition depends upon discerning ancient Near Eastern context. Similarly, the development of corporal punishment texts away from the primitivism of spanking rides on noninspired cultural law codes. Webb’s method hinges on cultural artifacts for discerning the moral trajectories of Scripture. Perhaps the most significant consequence of Webb’s approach is that the biblical text does not contain the ultimate ethic.
A final mention of Webb’s method focuses on the scope of the theology produced by his method. A weakness of his contribution to the book, and perhaps his method in general, is overemphasis on the area of moral theology to the exclusion of other areas of theology. He does not discuss in what way the redemptive-movement elements of Scripture relate to the formulation of doctrine outside of moral theology. Perhaps looking at Webb’s proposal in the light of the history of doctrinal development would reveal that many crucial doctrinal developments in areas such as Christology were not settled so much on the basis of a movement behind the text, but more so as a result of meditation upon the concrete particulars on the page.
Conclusion and Summary
The variety of methods of biblical interpretation and application—and the impact of that variety—cannot be ignored. Furthermore, the reviewers noted valuable aspects of each. The principlizing model correctly identifies objective revealed truth in Scripture. The redemptive-historical model correctly notes that the Bible centrally bears witness to God’s eternal plan to redeem humanity to Himself through Jesus Christ. The drama-of-redemption model correctly emphasizes that the Bible is not merely to be read, but to be lived. The redemptive-movement model rightly recognizes that God gave the Bible at a particular nexus of history and culture which cannot be ignored in hermeneutics. Some of the authors recognize the complementary nature of their views, but each maintains a sense of tension between them. Readers will find themselves agreeing and disagreeing with elements of each of the views, underscoring the potential of this subject to generate growth as well as division.
Interestingly, Meadors brings in three additional scholars to present further reflections on the four views presented. Mark Strauss teaches New Testament at Bethel Seminary. He emphasizes the subjectivity of biblical interpretation and consequently minimizes the goal of discovering objective principles rather than practices. He sees value in affirming the historical-grammatical hermeneutic, but insists that a Bible reader cannot stay completely in the text, so to speak. He recognizes the huge limitations of Vanhoozer’s drama metaphor and Webb’s search for a so-called trajectory of the Spirit. He then proposes in their stead a model of the Bible as a bridge or a journey which, he admits, runs into those same limitations. Al Wolters teaches philosophy and Old Testament at Redeemer University College. He points out how each view falls short in the most challenging texts, especially those about child discipline, slavery, and gender subordination. Instead, he proposes that the Bible does actually teach offensive positions to those in an enlightened Western context. In place of the four views, he offers general revelation (“creation revelation”) as the key to unlocking the Bible; it is the real context for the drama of humanity (to use Vanhoozer’s term) and it cannot be separated from historical conditioning. Christopher Wright directs Langham Partnership International. He sees elements of truth in each of the views presented and offers the case study of unclean meat to prove his claim. But rather than pick apart their weaknesses, he focuses on the need for a unifying, intentional approach to Scripture, whatever it may be. He proposes the story of Creation, Fall, Redemption, New Creation as that approach, emphasizing its missional perspective. In essence, Wright simply replaces the views with a missional hermeneutic, elegant (and very limited) in its simplicity.
Each of the three additional authors points out the unintended discrepancies
and parallels in the four views. For example, where Vanhoozer would emphasize living out the story of forgiveness in the parable of the prodigal son, Kaiser would focus on the principle of forgiveness. But in what ways are these approaches really different? How can they be separated? When Doriani synthesizes Scripture into ethical statements, how is this different from the principlizing model? Yet when Doriani and Kaiser come to opposing conclusions about issues such as gender roles, how do they determine which is wrong? Clearly, often each of the contributors simply talk past one another. The diverse reactions of the additional contributors underscore just how difficult this debate is. Readers may not agree with the views, but they will learn a great deal.
