BOOK REVIEW
Christian Theologies of Scripture: A Comparative Introduction, Edited by
Justin S. Holcomb (New York University Press, New York), Paperback Edition, 2006, 330
pages. ISBN-10: 0-8147-3666-1.
Reviewed by Mary C. Sheridan, St. Elias School of Orthodox Theology
In Justin Holcomb’s introduction to this book he tells us he
offers a “map” to the “variety of views about scripture found throughout the
Christian tradition”; he also states such a “map” can “assist us in developing
theologies of scripture for our present and future contexts” (p. 6). Maps, though, may be more or less
complete. Some maps show only major
highways; other maps show every detailed road and street. The parts of the “map” of scriptural theology
in this book, the chapters, due to the limitation of space in this book,
necessarily show only major roads, the major tenets of the various theologians
chosen to represent various periods of theological development. For instance, the patristic and medieval
periods are combined and are represented by three theologians—Origen, St. Augustine, and St.
Thomas Aquinas. The Reformation is
represented by two men, Martin Luther and John Calvin; the chapter on the
Counter-Reformation (to this reviewer’s count) mentions at least thirteen
theologians. The nineteenth and
twentieth centuries are represented by four theologians: Friedrich Schleiermacher, Karl Barth, Hans
Urs von Balthasar, and Hans Frei. The
last section discusses scripture from the standpoint of several female
theologians currently working and publishing.
Another chapter deals with scripture in the African-American Christian
tradition; this chapter elaborates on the particular approach to scripture the
African-American culture has taken in its history in
America from the time of slavery to
present day. This book then closes with
an essay on scripture in the information/virtual age.
This review will by no means comment on all the scriptural
points expounded by each scholar included in this book. In fact, the short summary of each theologian
may obviously be inadequate. But this
review will attempt to see the entirety of ideas in the book as a whole, see
the evolution of thought about scripture as some of the greatest thinkers in
Christianity gradually evolved a
living
scriptural theology. So an attempt will
be made to capture in a few sentences the essence of the scriptural thought of
each theologian and/or period.
However, since the eighteen chapters that constitute this
book are each written by eighteen different scholars, the writing style, the
summary of thought of each theologian is of varying quality. Therefore, mixed in with the very short
précis of each theologian a short critique of the scholar who wrote the chapter
will be included. In the opinion of this
reviewer a book with a subtitle “A Comparative
Introduction” [emphasis added] must be by definition written for
the beginning student of scriptural theology.
Therefore, this review will comment on how well, in this reviewer’s
opinion, the scholar writing on the specific theologian explained, expressed
the theologian’s ideas for the beginner in theology.
It should also be noted that the concentration of this
review will be on the chapters dealing with the theologians.
Patristic and
Medieval Period:
Origen: The great Origen is described by R.R. Reno as
the “single most systematic thinker of Christian antiquity” and perhaps “the
most learned biblical scholar of he early Church.”
[1] Reno notes “Origen [185-254] is extraordinarily well disciplined as an exegete” but
does not tell his readers the “meaning of biblical passages.” Origen leads those “reading his
interpretation” so that they are “drawn toward the next step—contemplation of
the larger scheme of interlocking events, people, and words that make up the divine
economy itself” (p. 28). In other words,
Origen’s exegesis is a kind of
lectio divina. Reno
notes: “Origen’s understanding of the
essential purpose of biblical exegesis entails a movement through scriptural
text toward knowledge of the larger unity it depicts, and from knowledge of
that textual unity toward contemplation of the divine intention that has so
disposed all things” (p. 29).
Furthermore, Reno notes that “Origen’s exegetical work was so instrumental
in the consolidation of what became the dominant or the tradition that it
necessarily endured even as his name came to be associated with doctrinal
error” (note 18, p. 37). The fact of
Origen’s name being associated with doctrinal error is just that, in this
reviewer’s opinion, an association.
Anyone reading Origen easily sees him as a good and holy man.
Augustine: Pamela Bright notes that “Augustine’s
doctrine of scripture was determined by his decades-long contemplation of…God,
incarnate in human history, assuming the lowliness of the human condition” (p.
40). Bright further points out that
Augustine (354-430) concentrated on “interpreting scripture by focusing on the
nature and ‘ordering’ of love” (p. 42).
She points out that “Augustine’s doctrine of scripture is infused with
his celebration of the goodness of creation, in both its rich multiplicity and
its limitations” (p. 49). Bright notes “Augustine’s influence on the reception
of the Bible in Western Christianity is beyond comparison” (p. 50).
A missing “link” in this reviewer’s opinion is that there is
no real explanation of what happened (or perhaps did not happen) in the eight
hundred years between Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Lewis Ayres in his introductory chapter to
the Patristic and Medieval period does not mention any specific theologian who
lived or wrote during this period. His
only comment on the eight hundred year period is to say that two shifts
occurred—new genres were developed and reading techniques of “non-Christian
educators were increasingly taught in Christian contexts” (p. 17).
It seems that the medieval period got “short shrift” in this
book. Perhaps a chapter, or even a page
or two, on how the monasteries added to/subtracted from the preservation of the
scriptures, somewhat akin to what Bart Ehrman did in
Misquoting Jesus would have added a better continuity to tracing
the development of scriptural theology.
Thomas Aquinas: In discussing Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
Peter Chandler points out that in the approximately eight hundred years between
Augustine and Thomas Aquinas biblical reading and exegesis developed in the
monasteries, especially as
lectio divina (p. 61). With the growth of universities there was a
“tendency toward abstraction and systematization” (p. 62). Aquinas and the scholastic practice of
reading scripture “was a decided difference” from the approach to scriptural
theology in previous centuries in that it was “influenced by the study of the
works of Aristotle” (p. 61) and was “less ordered to…contemplative reading than
to academic disputation and preaching” (pp. 61-62). This last point is not surprising in that
Thomas Aquinas was a member of the Order of Preachers founded by St.
Dominic. Chandler calls Aquinas the “greatest of
medieval Christian thinkers” (p. 63).
Thomas Aquinas put less emphasis on the private reading of scripture but
insisted on the importance of the “mediation of teachers” and the ministry of
those who spoke (preached) “to the minds of those who listen” (p. 66). Chandler
notes that Thomas, in his office as
magister in sacra pagina (master of
the sacred page), the title of the professional theologian in his time (p. 64),
had three offices, preaching, lecturing, and disputing (p. 69); it was the work
of “disputation” as
magister that separated Aquinas from both Origen and
Augustine (p. 69).
Disputation was a method of learning in the
universities. A question was presented
to the students who produced arguments for and against the question; the answer
was left to the master (p. 69).
“Thomas’s understanding of
sacra doctrina [sacred doctrine]
betrays a sense of argumentation and persuasion”—both for the believer and the
non-believer (p. 70). Yet while there
was a change in the method of teaching with Thomas Aquinas, what was taught was
still the “Origenist-Augustinian spiritual reading of scripture” that was “very
much alive,” “practiced and transmitted” faithfully in the middle ages (p. 74).
[2] Chandler points out that in Thomas’ theology
of scripture there was a “ ‘thickening’ of literal sense…an important
clarification of what the letter of the text ‘means’ and in what sense one may
speak of the ‘intention’ of the author” of scripture (p. 76).
Reformation and
Counter-Reformation:
Martin Luther: The next theologian after Aquinas in this
book is Martin Luther. Mickey Mattox
points out that Luther, an Augustinian monk came to the “revolutionary
conclusion” that the “scriptures alone speak with certainty and bind the
consciences of the faithful in obedience to the Word of God” (p. 95). Mattox points out that “Luther developed a
distinctive approach” to scriptural theology; he also developed a “distinctive
vocabulary, biblical exposition” which for Martin Luther was “the central arena
of his own struggle for faith and faithfulness” as a Christian believer and
teacher (p. 96).
Luther saw the “ ‘proper form’ of the Word of God [as]
living human speech” in “sermons or in absolution by a pastor in the rite of
private confession (which Luther retained)” (p. 98). Mattox notes that “Christian exegesis is for
Luther a practice that presumes the Christian…at prayer, engaged in the
struggle for faith and faithfulness…centered in the ritual practice of
traditional Christianity—including…participation in the Church’s gathered
worship and regular reception of Holy Communion” (p. 107). Biblical exegesis was “very much an ecclesial
and communal act” for Luther (p. 107).
He saw a careful study of the contributions of those faithful he
considered authentic Christians as “taking advantage of the communion of
saints” by “listening to the witness of faithful men and women whose experience
of Law and Gospel parallels our own” (p. 107).
John Calvin: Randall Zachman’s summary of John Calvin’s
scriptural theology is very readable and “layperson friendly,” without
sacrificing any of the nuances of Calvin’s thought.
John Calvin (1509-1564) lived and worked in
France and
Switzerland. His concept of the scriptures was that they
were “ ‘dictated’ by the Holy spirit to…human authors” (p. 115). Thus, Calvin taught that the scriptures were
literally God’s word(s) dictated as such
to men. When there was a question of the
scriptures that were “delivered to the patriarchs in visions and dreams” (p.
116), Calvin solved the problem of the literal dictation of the scriptures by
teaching that God had “ ‘put into their minds what they should…hand down to
their posterity’ ” (p. 116).
But Calvin did not limit his concept of scripture’s being
literally God’s word dictated to the learned.
He claimed that “God’s teaching in scripture is accommodated to the
capacity of the most
unlearned of
people” [emphasis added] (p. 117).
However, Calvin did not go so far as to just “hand over” interpretation
the scriptures to those who were not educated.
He thought that the uneducated needed “interpreters” to “guide them in
their reading”’ (p. 118). Interpreters
were to be experienced in the knowledge of God.
Specifically, the interpreters/teachers were the pastors of the local
congregations (p. 118). In addition the
pastors of the local congregation trained “future pastors and teachers of the
Church, so that they might both teach doctrine drawn from the meaning of
scripture and guide their congregations in the reading of scripture” (p. 118).
Calvin also believed in what might be called the maturation
of the human race; that is, Calvin thought the “capacities of human beings
develop over time as humanity progresses from infancy to greater maturity” (p.
119). Specifically, Calvin thought that
“the doctrine taught to one age of humanity” could not simply be applied “directly
to another age” (p. 119). Calvin
believed it was necessary to “attend to the context in which the author wrote”
(p. 120).
While Calvin emphasized the importance of the scriptures for
the uneducated, he also thought that those who acted as interpreters of the
scriptures must be learned in Hebrew and Greek so they would be able to compare
“renditions of the best Hebrew and Greek codices available” (p. 120). Donald Prudlo in his article on the
Counter-Reformation notes that the Latin Vulgate had been used in the Roman
Church for nearly a thousand years, and over those thousand years “common
interpretations…eventually became enshrined in…particular passages” and were
repeated through the ages (pp. 135-136).
It was such problems with the Latin Vulgate then that led Calvin to look
to the “precedent of the Church fathers…who advised looking to the original
languages” of the Bible (p. 120).
[3] Calvin required those studying “sacred
theology…be conversant with past and present interpretation of the Hebrew and
Greek texts” (p. 121). Calvin also saw
the pastor as having “two responsibilities to his congregation.” One was to teach them a kind of catechism and
the elements of piety as taken from scripture.
The second responsibility was to preach “entire books of scripture two
or three verses at a time” (p. 122).
Zachman notes ( and this reviewer agrees) that it is hard “to imagine
what theology might look like were this [concern with the uneducated] the
primary objective” of theological studies (p. 130).
Scripture and Theology
in Early Modern Catholicism: This
essay deals with the Counter-Reformation with a focus on the Council of Trent
which took place from 1545-1563, approximately twenty-plus years after Martin
Luther first took his protesting stand in 1521.
Donald Prudlo notes: “Early
Modern Catholicism was far more than simply Counter-Reformation; it was a
paradoxical mixture of rigid conservatism and bold innovation” (p. 135). Prudlo emphasizes that the “reform” involved
in the Counter-Reformation was “not merely a response, but a process that both
antedated the Protestant Reformation and also went beyond it” (p. 135). A “sticking point” in the reform of
scriptural theology was the Latin Vulgate.
Nicholas of Lyra (1270-1340 C.E.) “articulated…the foundational
importance of the literal sense” of biblical interpretation. He stated that only “the literal sense” of
the scriptures could “proceed to the mystical interpretations that flowed from
it” (p. 136).
Prudlo also points out that after the printing of the
Gutenberg Bible which included the Latin Vulgate, over “six hundred printed
editions of the Bible” appeared “before the first Protestant version appeared”
(p. 136). Prudlo notes that many of
these six hundred editions were in “vernacular languages…eighteen in various
German dialects and twenty-four in French” (p. 136). Prudlo also states that the University of
Alcala in Spain compiled a Bible called the “Complutensian Polyglot” which
allowed scholars to “compare the Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, and Latin Vulgate in a
single edition” (p. 137).
Prudlo points out that Renaissance humanism led to the
humanists becoming “experts in ancient languages” and that the resulting
“critical efforts laid the groundwork for a shift in Catholic scriptural theology”
(p. 136). Prudlo notes: “Many Catholic thinkers attempted to
incorporate the humanist trend into scriptural theology” (p. 138); however, he
also points out that “a deep distrust of humanism ran in some church circles”
(p. 138). The “key interpretive
principle for scripture [according to the conservative groups] was
tradition. This idea was expressed by
Latomus who “articulated one of the key themes in Counter-Reformation exegesis,
namely that the Church is prior to Scripture and superior to it” (pp. 138-139).
When the Protestants forced the Church to “make
some…authoritative decisions regarding the Bible and its place in the Church”;
there were already within the Catholic Church conservative, innovative, and
middle-of-the-road theologians, all holding a “wide variety of views
and…different ways of approaching scripture” (pp. 141-142). Finally, the Church called the Council of
Trent in 1546.
The Council took up three main issues: the biblical canon, the relationship between
scripture and tradition, and the correct text of the Bible to be used by the
Church. The Council decided, after much
debate, to accept the books of the Florentine canon. Regarding scripture and tradition, the
Council of Trent, again after much debate, decided that revelation was “
‘contained in the written books and in the unwritten tradition’ ” (p.
143). Protestants had made Luther “the
spokesman-in-chief for the principle” of
sola
scriptura [scripture alone] (p. 107).
The Council “unequivocally rejected” the concept of
sola scriptura (p. 143); unfortunately, this position “planted a
wedge between Catholics and Protestants that remains to this day” (p.
143).
Regarding the text of the Bible, the Council decided the
Latin Vulgate “was free from doctrinal (not textual) error” (p. 144). Although there were many, many issues and
sub-issues hotly debated by the Council of Trent, “Scriptural theology in the
Catholic
[4]
Church had three central aspects” (p. 148).
Protestants were considered to be “invading” the Church, and scriptural
theologians defended the Church against this “invasion.” The Church’s scriptural theologians were
“engaged in discussion on the extent to which humanism ought to be
appropriated.” Lastly, Catholics sought
a “creative interaction with their established tradition “gained from the
Church fathers and from the medievals” to discover “new ways for theology to go
forward” (p. 148).
Nineteenth and
Twentieth Centuries:
Friedrich
Schleiermacher: Jeffrey Hensley’s
article on Friedrich Schleiermacher is readable but particular statements of
his could be more clearly and precisely stated; yet this criticism is not to
say his essay is an extremely difficult read.
Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) is noted to be the
“most significant Protestant theologian between John Calvin and Karl Barth” (p.
165). Jeffrey Hensley notes
Schleiermacher to be “modernity’s theologian” (p. 166). Schleiermacher was “resolutely uninterested
in specifying the particular mechanics of inspiration…what he calls ‘utterly
dead scholasticism’ ” (p. 174).
Instead Schleiermacher oriented his theology around what he
termed the “ ‘feeling of absolute dependence’ ” (p. 166). He maintained that “even if the authority of
scripture could be demonstrated through reason,” there was a “felt need for a
‘true living fellowship with Christ’ ” (p. 170). Schleiermacher grounded scriptural authority
in the consideration of “how the apostles came to faith”; he maintained that
the faith of the apostles was based on their belief in the prophecies about the
Messiah in the Old Testament.
Schleiermacher also held that because the apostles had faith in the
Christ they knew as a person, “they applied…prophetic writings to his person
and activity” (p. 170).
In addition Schleiermacher maintained that “each age of the
Church has its own original thinking as guided by the living presence of the
Spirit” (p. 172). Schleiermacher further
maintained that scriptural inspiration did
not
mean that God told the authors of scripture “what they were to write in detail”
(p. 173). Instead, Schleiermacher traced
everything in the teaching of the authors of the New Testament “back to Christ
and his impression on them.”
Schleiermacher thought that inspiration was a “ ‘single individual
bestowal of knowledge out of which the particulars evolve organically’ ” (p.
173). So Schleiermacher taught that the
“authors of scripture were inwardly free to articulate, to produce their
respective representations of that divine bestowal, of their faith in Christ as
they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (p. 173).
Schleiermacher, though, did not accept that the Old
Testament shared the “normative dignity or inspiration of the New” (p.
177). He claimed “the spirit of the Old
Testament is not the same as the Spirit at work in the New Testament” (p.
177). In addition Schleiermacher
maintained the Old Testament lacked the “ability to form Christian piety.” Specifically, Schleiermacher thought the Old
Testament lacked the language and thought forms” of the New Testament (p.
177). Lastly, Schleiermacher thought the
Old Testament lacked the “ability to function as a critical norm” because
appeals to prove Christian doctrine through the Old Testament do not have a
“clear proclamation of the New Testament to Christian doctrine” (p. 178). Schleiermacher thought that “it would be best
if the Old Testament were placed as an appendix to the New so that it was clear
that it was in no way necessary to work through the Old Testament in order to
understand the New” (p. 178). Hensley
concludes: “Schleiermacher’s greatest
legacy concerning a contemporary doctrine of scripture is his challenge to
think beyond…dichotomies” [the “ ‘either/or’ mindset…of the word-centered”
versus the “piety-centered theologies of the twentieth century”] to a fuller
“appreciation of how scripture’s rootedness in Christian piety need not count
against its authority in shaping the future of that piety” (p. 179).
Karl Barth: This reviewer found the essay on Karl
Barth to be most refreshing—perhaps for a most personal reason—Karl Barth’s
teaching resonated with her the most.
Karl Barth (1886-1968) has been criticized by professional
biblical scholars for “being an enemy of historical criticism” and of
practicing a kind of biblical exegesis that is merely “ ‘ spiritual’ and achieved
without scholarly research” (p. 184 and note 2, p. 196). Evangelical theologians think Barth leaves
“an opening for subjectivism in his treatment of biblical authority and
inspiration” (p. 184). Meanwhile,
liberal theologians accuse Barth of a scriptural theology “that does not…engage
the concerns of the world” (p. 184).
Even Barth’s supporters find critical aspects to his scriptural
interpretation. Mary Kathleen Cunningham
notes that all these critiques of his work “should alert us to the complexity
of his thought and preclude facile characterizations of his approach to
scripture” (p. 184).
Barth insisted that revelation, scripture, and preaching
were “one form of the threefold Word of God” and maintained this threefold
aspect was the only accurate analogy to the Holy Trinity. Barth thought each aspect of the threefold
Word of God reflected the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit respectively (p.
185). Barth also maintained that “the
Bible becomes God’s Word.” The concept
of “ ‘being-in-becoming’ of scripture” reflected and extended Barth’s “decision
to ‘actualize’ the doctrine of the Incarnation and to speak of the
‘being-in-becoming’ of Jesus Christ” (p. 186).
Barth insisted the canon was unified and must be read as
such; he thought the “goal of [biblical] scholarship should be radically
reoriented” (p. 187). Barth believed the
“particular identity of Jesus Christ defines the concepts associated with Him,
and not the reverse” (p. 187). Barth
maintained he had no christological principal, method, or dogma; he said “in
each theological question” he attempted to orient himself “afresh” to “Jesus
Christ himself” (note 25, p. 199). Such
orientation, then, reflected “Barth’s commitment to the priority of the
particular over the general” (p. 187).
In practice Barth’s approach led to a scriptural approach
that departed “from the standard techniques of professional biblical scholars”
(p. 188). Barth assumed the “Bible means
what it says”; but he understood this meaning “what It says” in a way that
contrasted “with the views of biblical literalists” (p. 189). Hans Frei (perhaps a kindred spirit) noted
that for Barth the “ ‘meaning’ of the biblical stories does not lie in
their reference to historical events” (p. 189).
Instead, Cunningham points out that the meaning of scripture according
to Barth, is in “the interaction of character, context, and circumstance” (p.
189).
Cunningham notes that Barth’s hermeneutical principles were
distinguished by his “theological commitments, his christocentricity,
particularism, and actualism” (p. 194).
Cunningham notes: Such a
theological approach to scripture “can, in the hands of a skilled practitioner
such as Barth, yield results that are both captivating and enduring” (p.
195). However, Cunningham also points
out that Barth’s approach has “an inherent danger” (p. 195). This danger is that “the urge to remain
current will lead to distortion of the Gospel, which can become captive to
contemporary culture” (p. 195). But
Barth believed that his position of allowing the Bible to clarify our questions
and not our questions to clarify the Bible answered this danger and enabled “us
to avoid what he saw as the perils of cultural Christianity” (p. 195).
In particular Barth’s perspective provided a “necessary
corrective” to the “lethal adaptation of the Christian message to Nazi
anti-Semitic ideology” (pp. 195-196).
Barth’s position can certainly be understood as he was “one of the
founders of the
Confessing
Church, which resisted
the capitulation of the ‘German Christians’ to Nazi propaganda” in the
mid-1930s. Barth’s “vigorous disavowal
of cultural Christianity serves as a firewall against the potentially corrosive
effects of a societal misappropriation of the Christian Gospel” (p. 196).
Hans Urs von
Balthasar:[5] W.T. Dickens’
writing of the material on Hans Urs von Balthasar was unnecessarily
complex; that is, the structure of paragraphs and sentences, even the
vocabulary chosen, was written in such a way as to make von Balthasar’s theory
obscure, complexly stated, and thus not a simple “read.” It was necessary at times to say, “What does
this sentence mean?” Having to stop the
flow of reading to rephrase the meaning of a sentence or even a paragraph does
not induce the layperson to read an essay or book. This type of complex writing is done to
impress one’s peers rather than to aid in the general understanding of the
knowledge one is trying to impart. There
is an “old saw” that applies to this type of writing: “Never use a two or three syllable word where
a five or six syllable word will do.”
Dickens’ rather convoluted writing in general contributed to making von
Balthasar’s concepts more difficult to understand than likely they are.
W. T. Dickens states:
“Hans Urs von Balthasar was not a
systematic
[emphasis in original] theologian.” In
addition Dickens notes that von Balthasar’s theological work is spread over
multi-volumes of work and is “rambling, repetitive, occasionally contradictory
and…not organized along traditional doctrinal lines”
[6]
(p. 203). Dickens states, perhaps
forewarns: “Summarizing and evaluating
von Balthasar’s doctrine of scripture…is…a matter of reasoned judgment, of
teasing out of a sprawl of abiding convictions and practices” (p. 203). Since this is the case with von Balthasar’s
work, it seems that such a situation then requires of the essay writer a clear
attempt to clarify for the layperson von Balthasar’s concepts of scriptural
theology rather than obscure them with unnecessarily intricate writing.
Only three of von Balthasar’s ideas regarding scriptural
interpretation will be mentioned here.
Dickens notes specifically that von Balthasar thought scriptural
interpretation had three “warrants for the necessity of scriptural
interpretation” (P. 204). What does von
Balthasar mean here? Dickens does not
tell us if “warrants” means that von Balthasar affirmed these three principles
or thought of them as mandates, decrees, or any one of the various other
meanings of “warrants.” The first of
these “warrants” was von Balthasar’s “doctrine of Scripture [which] has much to
offer Christians concerned to articulate how the Bible can function
authoritatively at the beginning of the third millennium” (p. 203). Von Balthasar believed that because of “its
christological source and orientation, creation provides God with the
vocabulary by which God communicates God’s nature and will” (p. 204). But according to von Balthasar, “God’s
self-revelation is not to be identified” with the media of creation but is
expressed in the two natures, human and divine of Christ (p. 204). Dickens would have done well to explain both
what von Balthasar meant by the “media” of creation and by “God’s
self-revelation” being expressed in the human and divine natures of Christ. Is this “media” of creation nature in its
various manifestations? Are human beings
included in the “media” of creation?
What does it mean, really, to say God reveals Himself in the human and
divine natures of Christ other than to say the obvious that Christ was both God
and man? This reviewer was left
wondering what she missed; how she might have misread this statement. Although Dickens goes on to elaborate on this
concept, the elaboration is not any clearer than the sentence quoted above. Is the problem here one of von Balthasar’s
stratospherically intellectual writing, or is the problem that Dickens does not
express von Balthasar’s thought in a way the layperson can understand?
Von Balthasar also maintained that biblical interpretation
is one of the “principal modes by which Christians” are to glorify God and that
biblical interpretation is one of the chief means of “divine and human
interaction that God wants of God’s covenant partners” (p. 204). Dickens notes that von Balthasar “urged each
Christian to engage the scriptures…in order to discern the purpose for which
God places the texts in the reader’s own unique sociocultural circumstances”
(p. 205). Could this sentence be
explained by saying that von Balthasar thought that each Christian should read
and use the scriptures to recognize, identify, distinguish what it is that God
wants of each Christian in his/her life?
If this is the meaning of von Balthasar’s statement, Dickens could have
made a very powerful argument very simply for the place of scriptural
interpretation in each Christian’s life.
The last of von Balthasar’s teachings regarding scriptural
interpretation is stated in Dickens’ words:
“Balthasar saw a polyvalence of the scriptures just mentioned as a
result of the inexhaustible richness of the subject matter, namely, the
Trinitarian love of God” (p. 205). “What
does this mean?” Does this sentence mean
that the scriptures should be interpreted because their unlimited richness is
based on the unlimited love of God for man which then acts as a toxin, a
vaccine, against the poisons of society?
Another problem with Dickens’ writing: He explains a tenet von Balthasar holds in
his scriptural theology and then presents the pros and cons of the tenet. While this is a valid approach, somehow this
method of explaining von Balthasar’s theology had a strange effect. Just as the reader became very interested in
a particular point von Balthasar held, she would be forced to consider the
argument for and against the point. This
juxtaposition of pros and cons jarred the thought of the reader and the
inclination to concentrate on the positive aspects of von Balthasar’s
scriptural theology.
In the end it was exhausting trying to determine precisely
what it was von Balthasar stated in his scriptural theology. The question then arose: Where is the problem here? In von Balthasar’s writing or in Dickens’
explanation of von Balthasar’s writing?
One would think that in an
introductory
book, von Balthasar’s concepts could be more clearly explained. The fact that von Balthasar’s doctrine is
spread over numerous volumes and does not have a “tidy summary” (p. 203) puts
the burden on the scholar to summarize the theologian’s thought; this Dickens
does, but his summary, unfortunately, suffers from its own version of the use
of jargon that does not help to clarify von Balthasar’s thought. Once again, the “old saw” at work.
Hans Frei: Mike Higton, the writer of this section
notes, that Frei “devoted [himself] to identifying and undoing specific knots
in which he believed modern theologians and exegetes had succeeded in tying
themselves.” Reading Higton’s attempt at
summarizing and explicating Frei’s ideas was “tough slugging.” After having read some passages as many as
six times, this reader found herself saying, “What’s wrong with me that I
cannot grasp the ideas Higton is stating here.”
Then, Higton quoted Frei himself; and suddenly, the concepts were clear
and easily understood. Did Higton
himself inadvertently express Frei’s ideas in the “knots” that Frei himself had
attempted to unravel; or was the “old saw” at work again? This reader would categorize herself in the
ranks of an ordinary layperson; she is of the opinion that someone not deeply
steeped in theology would find this chapter on Frei one that a layperson would
find too difficult to read and thus only too easily avoid.
Part of the complexity of Frei’s theory of scriptural
interpretation may reside in his background.
Hans Frei (1922-1988) was the son of a “secular Jewish family” born in
Berlin. As anti-Semitism increased in
Germany, he was “sent away to a Quaker school in
England and then emigrated
with his family to
New York.” It is not clear when he became a Christian,
but the introduction indicates Frei then “studied theology at Yale.” He eventually became a Baptist minister, then
an Episcopal priest (p. 220).
Frei’s scriptural theology had to have been a product of (at
the very least be influenced by) his diverse religious background. In addition, might Frei be a forerunner of
the developments in what are described in the last section of this book,
“Contextual Theologies of Scripture.”
This term “contextual theologies” deals with developments in scriptural
theology in the latter half of the twentieth century into the twenty-first
century, specifically, the increase in female theologians, and an
acknowledgement, after centuries, of the specific African-American approach to
scriptural theology. This is not to say
Frei even was aware of these last two groups but is meant to wonder if he was
the forerunner of/reflected the start of a new “sprout” in
living scripture.
Now to Higton’s summary of Frei’s work. Higton states “Frei claimed that precritical
readers of certain ‘history-like’ narratives in the Bible normally assumed that
such narratives portrayed real historical events” (p. 221). Does this mean that stories in scripture are
taken to be real history by people who do not know better? “Precritical” cannot refer to theological
thought before Origen as by Frei’s own statement he is attempting to untie
“knots” some theologians had themselves tied.
The term “precritical” is also used in many other places throughout this
essay. This reader is at a loss to
understand Higton’s use of just this one term, to say nothing of the other
complex concepts Higton “explains.” Then,
Higton quotes Frei on the resurrection:
“ ‘Of course, we think something happened, but how it transpired we
won’t know in this life or history. All
we know is that it is coherent with God’s being and faithfulness in creating,
sustaining and saving us in life and death’ ” (pp. 234-235). This is a quite clear and understandable
statement by Frei. The conclusion can
only be: Better to read Frei himself
than this essay about Frei’s work. Once
again, the “old saw” at work.
Contextual Theologies
of Scripture:
Tradition and
Traditions: Graham Ward notes there
never will be “a systematic theology to which all Christians past, present, and
future concur” (p. 257). Ward cogently
and clearly explains the “dynamic heart” at the center of the development of
tradition (p. 259). Ward concisely, in
easily readable terms, explains the difference between conventions, customs,
and tradition, illuminating that tradition “is never monolithic”; tradition
“always encounters multiplicity, plurality” (p. 250). An excellent chapter, written clearly and
cogently and easily readable.
Scripture, Feminism,
and Sexuality: As a general comment,
it would be well to avoid “feminist” and substitute the word “female”
throughout the discussion about theologians who are women. “Feminist” carries with it strident
connotations and approaches that sometimes alienate other scholars. However, since the word “feminist” is used
throughout this essay by Pamela Cochran, this is the word used in the review of
this chapter.
Regarding feminist theology, Pamela Cochran notes the
various approaches feminist theologians take to scripture—rejection, revision,
and reform.
Some feminist theologians take a stance of rejection of the
“authority of Christian scripture entirely” (p. 266). Mary Daly is one of these theologians. These feminist theologians of rejection
attempt to “affirm the female body by creating a positive validation of women’s
will and women’s bonds with one another” (p. 267). It seems that such a stance rejects half of
the human race—the same objection with which the feminists began. This type of approach to scriptural theology
is equally as bad as the masculine rejection of a female approach to scriptural
theology
Revision feminist theologians, of whom Rosemary Radford Ruether
is one, would “transform Christianity from an authoritative religion to a
prophetic one” (p. 270). Other
feminist/revisionist theologians such as Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza would
“locate revelation in the present community of faith, not in past texts” (p.
271). Ruether and Schussler Fiorenza
would not exclude men from their theology.
Ruether would use “the prophetic messianic principle” which she “defines
as a ‘rejection of every elevation of one social group against others…every use
of God to justify social domination and subjugation’ ” (p. 270). Schussler Fiorenza notes that for women the
“community is women-church” (p. 271) and would place “women-church at the
center of biblical interpretation” to safeguard “women’s power over their own
spiritual lives” (p. 271).
Among the feminist revision theologians Cochran notes: “Women of color, including
African-Americans…have adopted the term ‘womanist’ to describe themselves and
their work” (p. 272). These womanist
theologians “seek to situate their theological explorations in the particular
experience of the community” (p. 272).
Jacquelyn Grant, representative of this group locates “the primary
source for black women’s faith in God’s direct revelation” (p. 272). (For a related discussion see “Scripture in
the African-American Christian Tradition” below.)
Feminist theologians of reform themselves seem unable to
come to a consensus. Cochran
states: “A number of Catholic
feminists…acknowledge the Bible’s authority alongside the Church’s history of
doctrine and interpretation” (p. 275).
However, this group of feminists has split over the attempt by some of
them to include the concept of same-sex sexuality in their theological
position. (See pp. 274-275).
Have these feminist theologians allowed themselves to be
caught in the trap of being linked inextricably with limiting the discussion of
sexuality to a discussion of lesbianism and homosexuality? Feminist theology and homosexuality, whether
female or male, are two separate topics that require two separate
approaches. At first thought it seemed
that “sexuality” would deal with the specific contribution feminists as women
can and do make to scriptural theology.
Instead somehow “sexuality” turned into a discussion of the conflation
of feminism and lesbianism/homosexuality.
These two issues of scriptural theology and sexual orientation should be
dealt with separately. Sexual
orientation has become a matter for science more than for theology.
Another, perhaps tangential, issue is the grossly neglected
issue of the effect on men of the completely patriarchal approach to
theology. This situation is addressed to
some extent by Latin American (
mujerista) feminist theologian, Ida Maria
Isasi-Diaz: She critiques “
machismo,
the patriarchal nature of Hispanic families, and irresponsible sex” by which
Isasi-Diaz means “ ‘the psychological and emotional trauma that sexuality
outside a committed relationship” causes.
Rather than approach this multi-faceted topic from the standpoint of the
female only, one would like to see included in this topic a discussion of the
effects on the male of this cultural stance that may pervade the Latin-American
culture more than it does other cultures but that does not escape general
society and its men. Too much emphasis
on the feminine in females leads to a stunting of growth in women; too much
emphasis on the masculine leads equally to a stunting of growth in men. Feminist theologians would do well to address
this issue from both the female and male standpoints. The patriarchal hierarchy and its refusal to
admit to the inclusion of the thoughts of feminist theologians for critical
evaluation and debate certainly does not address the issue of the male’s growth
as a person in its theology to say nothing of the effect it has on Christian
females.
One last thought:
This reader wondered if the women theologians included in this essay
were “campaigning” for a place for “The Goddess”/the feminine aspect of God in
theology.
Scripture in the
African-American Christian Tradition: A
well-written and easily understood essay by Lewis Baldwin and Stephen Murphy
explains the use of “creative adaptation” in scriptural interpretation in the
African-American Christian church. These
scholars explain that African-American biblical scholars “looked to the Bible
as a guide to God’s interaction with the world” (p. 284). Baldwin and Murphy note that in the stories
of the Old Testament, slaves in
America
“found a wealth of characters, images, and events with which to interpret their
own lives and experiences and to tell their story” (p. 283). For example, these scholars point out that in
spirituals sung by the slaves they “framed their plight in terms of
Exodus: The Hebrews who escaped bondage
in
Egypt and safely
cross[ed] through the
Red Sea” spoke of the
slaves’ own bondage and desire for freedom (pp. 283-284).
Baldwin and Murphy point out that the “domestic slave
trade…deprived African-Americans of a monogamic family unit [and]
African-American churches took shape not merely as religious groups, but also
as social institutions. Without a stable
family, slaves looked to religious bodies for mutual support against the
splintering and dehumanizing forces of slavery” (pp. 284-285). Balwin and Murphy also note that “white
Christians…emphasized [to the slaves] those New Testament texts that
encourage[d] docility, submission, and patience in suffering” (p. 285). But the slaves used not only the story of the
Hebrew Exodus to speak for liberation, they also used the story of the
rebellion of Samson against the Philistines as a “call for social justice
sounded by the prophets and Jesus Christ” (p. 285). They note that most of the slaves were
illiterate, not
allowed to learn to
read; they “could not search the Bible for themselves.” But the slaves who did learn the stories
“spread them verbally” to others” (pp. 289-290). Baldwin and Murphy trace the manner of
scriptural interpretation through the history of the African-American as slave
in
America
to present time. These scholars point
out that the scriptural thought of Martin Luther King, Jr., blended Old and New
Testament themes; King used the stories of the Old Testament and blended them
with “the brotherly love emphasized in the New Testament” (pp. 293-294). King was a master at this kind of biblical
interpretation. Baldwin and Murphy
emphasize that African-American Christian biblical interpretation was “grounded
in an emphasis on the Bible’s clear condemnation of oppression in this world,”
a theme too often neglected by white American Christians (p. 297).
This essay on the African-American Christian tradition was
an inspiring “read.”
Postmodern
Scripture: Gerard Loughlin has
written an essay that seems to be meant to bring scriptural theology into the
information/virtual age. Yet, this
reviewer found this essay “virtual”—that is, questioning exactly what, if
anything Loughlin was willing to admit as real.
He seemed to have a tendency to keep statements “fuzzy,” e.g.: “The Bible is interconstitutive of revelation
but it is not itself revelation” (p. 307).
Loughlin explains this sentence means:
“The Bible itself, abstracted from the life of the community in which it
lives, is not and cannot be inspired” (p. 307).
Loughlin says in true “virtual-ese”: “To enter the world of the Bible-become-scripture
is to enter the community that reads the scripture as that which delineates the
world of the community” (p. 307).
Yet Loughlin does make a clear and cogent point when he says: “While not everything in the scriptural
narratives refers to real events, the stories still serve to render the truth
of the historical events to which they do refer” (p. 313). For example, Loughlin notes the story of the
birth of Jesus. Perhaps not every detail
of Bethlehem, manger, angels, shepherds, wise men may be true; but there is no
doubt that Jesus
was born and the
accompanying stories affirm his identity (p. 313).
Loughlin notes that these stories “express not only
that Jesus matters, but
why he matters” [emphasis in original]
(p. 313). Finally, Loughlin notes that
“revelation is not the recollection of a past appearance…but the moment when we
see God’s future for the world…calling us forward” (p. 320).
Conclusion:
Justin Holcomb as editor accomplished a real feat: He assembled scholars to take the readers of
this book from the beginning of systematized scriptural theology that started
with Origen, through the permutations of universities, the Reformation, the
Counter-Reformation, the Modernism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,
through to the present day developments of feminist theology, an explanation of
African-American scriptural exegesis which has been in use for hundreds of
years, yet perhaps unacknowledged by the mainstream of scriptural exegetes,
through to scriptural interpretation in the third millennium.
Frankly, this book ran “hot and cold.” Most of the sections were very readable for
the layperson (which this reviewer most certainly is); these sections were
written in such a way that the explanation and explication of the ideas of the
theologian discussed were clearly, precisely, and carefully stated so a
layperson could easily grasp the individual writer’s overview and explanation
of the theological ideas of the theologian representative of the period in
question. Other sections, while not
stratospherically intellectual and theological, were couched in less clear
terminology and sentences, leaving this reader wondering what exactly was meant
by the author of a particular essay.
One other point of some “contention”: There were times when this reviewer found
herself wondering why other renowned theologians were not included in this
book. Yet, by definition this book is “a
Comparative
Introduction.” Therefore, necessarily, the editor had to
pick and choose which theologians to include—this book is both an
“introduction” and “comparative.” One
simply has to leave the choice of theologians to the editor. After reading the entire book, this reviewer
said with surprised delight, that the editor chose well. In fact, the chapter on the
Counter-Reformation, the chapter on current scriptural theology as expounded by
feminist theologians, and the chapter on African-American scriptural tradition
covered many theologians in their respective areas.
This book would be particularly useful for the layperson who
has a rudimentary knowledge of scriptural theology (in which category this
reviewer places herself). Justin Holcomb
has chosen well in selecting representative theologians from the very
beginnings of the development of scriptural theology at the end of the second
century C.E. through to present times which are termed “Postmodern
scripture.” This last period is
described by Gerard Loughlin as one where it is impossible to “retrieve the
premodern,” where one “cannot undo…the loss of innocence that comes from eating
the fruit of historical criticism” (p. 306) which is the situation in which
present day Christians of the information/virtual age find themselves.
