My friend Dan Treier offers an account of the “Heaven on Earth” conference on theological interpretation held here at Regent College last autumn, and he ranges well beyond that reportage to reflections on larger issues arising in that conference. I was out of the country and so could not attend the conference myself. I therefore have nothing to say about Dan’s account of the conference. What prompts this note is a worry that Dan’s characterization of more general issues might reflect badly on my colleagues in biblical studies and theology.
I think Dan gets most things right in his article, and we share a similar outlook on this debate. I also am confident that he means no harm to Regent College. I want to take issue only with a few particular points that occur in one troubling paragraph that, unfortunately, stands in a dominant position early in his article:
“Courses in biblical studies and (usually) hermeneutics teach how to exegete the Bible using modern tools of critical scholarship, perhaps with a measure of discernment about the presuppositions involved in the history of those tools. Meanwhile courses in theology and (perhaps) pastoral ministry or spiritual life teach what classic churchly interpreters did with the Bible and suggest (to varying degrees) that we should go and do likewise. The challenge of discernment becomes much more difficult as a result: can the students embrace a modern approach centered on historical reconstruction of the human author’s intentions, simply making minor presuppositional adjustments that uphold the Bible’s historical value and theological authority? Or must students fundamentally embrace a more classic understanding of spiritual exegesis centered on pursuit of the divine Author’s intentions, simply making ad hoc use of modern historical tools when these seem helpful to churchly aims?”
Dan does helpfully nuance this account later, and he also makes it clear that he is not speaking primarily about Regent, but about trends in a number of other schools, including his own. Unfortunately, first impressions are powerful, and this paragraph does govern the piece. So may I clarify matters as follows.
First, those who have read any of the many writings of my colleagues in biblical studies—Iain Provan, V. Philips Long, and Rikk E. Watts—or heard them teach the Bible know that they routinely mount sustained and searching critiques of the standard SBL hist-crit approach. They go far beyond “making minor presuppositional adjustments,” in fact, to deploy a wide range of approaches to Bible study and as a matter of course connect their careful scholarship with issues of piety and mission in the church today.
Second, my theological colleague Hans Boersma (co-director of the project that hosted the conference) and I do not simply commend the approach of “classic churchly interpreters” (from which century? era? tradition?). As anyone who has us or heard us speak would know, we both value modern learning in its various modes, including the scholarly study of the Bible as well as contemporary philosophy, literary theory, and more, and we respectfully critique the approaches of our forebears. Of course, we teach our students to do the same.
Third, it would be incorrect to conclude that at Regent the debate is between those who focus on the original human author (quite apart from the implication that my biblical studies colleagues are unaware of the canonical process of multiple sources and redactions) and those who focus on the divine author (as if we theologians believe the Bible has simply emerged from the Holy Spirit unimportantly mediated by human individuals, communities, and interpretative traditions).
Fourth, however clever it is for some of our students to characterize the discussion as “history versus mystery,” it is also misleading to do so. (I have begun a witch hunt to identify and punish these recalcitrant pupils.) History is very much in play on both sides of the debate, and both sides emphasize the irreducible mystery of divine revelation and its interpretation. What is at stake instead is the much more interesting and complex question of theological method in the deployment of the full range of the church’s resources in interpretation, and whether some of those resources have proven to be dangerous and therefore require vigilant, savvy deployment—a characterization I would think we would all agree is true of both historical-critical exegesis and allegorical hermeneutics. That’s what we’re discussing at Regent.
I know Dan Treier to be a man of impeccable integrity and fine scholarship, so I know he meant only good in writing this piece. Teaching where he does, however, I am also sure he is aware of how even well-intended accounts of who is saying what about the Bible can ripple out into unanticipated quarters with unintended consequences. Thus I am glad for B&C to let me register these caveats.
John G. Stackhouse, Jr., is Sangwoo Youtong Chee Professor of Theology and Culture Regent College.
