The gap between academy and church confronts me every day as a NT scholar.
Much of what I wrestle with here on the pages of Storied Theology is an attempt to reframe biblical passages and Christian theology in light of what I take to be better historical readings of NT passages than the ones most of us carry around in our heads.
In the classroom, much of the challenge that faces the students, besides getting through my reading list, comes from the slow realization that I’m building an entirely different framework for understanding what the Bible says and how we can know it. My goal, however, is not to establish a new priesthood of the academic, but to empower the people to read their Bibles again for the first time. This is why I blog–to create space for real people and to intersect with academic theology.
I do believe in the work of the church, and want to reiterate that I think it extremely important that we who are in academia continue to listen to and learn from the church.
Having said all this, I must now say that I do think there are dead-ends along certain paths. And one of those dead-ends is to take the stance of allowing our churches’ theology to determine our readings of scripture. Whether we think of that guiding theology as some small framework such as the Apostles Creed, or an extensive elaboration of doctrine such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, reading our Bibles to discover the theology of the church will inevitably take us far afield from the historical meaning of the text.
A couple points of elaboration.
First, this is not a condemnation of the later theology of the church. It had to say what it needed to say in its own later days and times, just like the biblical writers had to say what they needed to say in their own. To say that the church’s theology is a poor guide to what the NT or OT writers themselves thought is no greater word of condemnation than to say that Matthew’s theology is a poor guide to Mark or that Chronicles’ theology is a poor guide to Samuel-Kings.
Second, we tend to lose sight of the fact, because it is so natural to our world, that articulating a theology as such is not a necessary outcome of having a Bible. The Jewish people have never defined themselves based on Creeds. They do biblical interpretation of stories and law–and that is their defining characteristic. It’s not a statement of faith per se.
The church has defined itself by extensive statements of faith, but the biblical “definitions” of God are much more dynamic. We have different ways of thinking about and talking about God than Paul or Jesus or John the seer did. This means that we have to learn afresh if we want to hear scripture in its historical context. And, this is why I don’t think that the church as such should be given the last word in this academy-church divide.
The church will always read the Bible as affirming its tradition. The academy will always read the Bible as challenging the church’s tradition. And somehow the two together will, in the best of circumstances, create a synergy that leads to faithful narration of the Christian story in our own time and place.
I love this, Daniel. Nothing to add.
What has always puzzled me was that the Reformation was a movement of the academy, but since the Fundamentalist and Modernist controversy we have a distrust of the academy. The defining mark of the Reformed believer is a respect and partnership. Well, should be.
Jerry, this is a great thought, perhaps one that I’ll explore more tomorrow. Today’s church assumption is yesterday’s academic cutting edge.
Do you include theological hermeneutics in this?
Jeremiah, I think that there are some ways in which various practitioners of theological hermeneutics have managed to avoid this. I see much of what Richard Hays has done as falling under a large umbrella that I’d call “theological hermeneutics;” but, there are also a number of advocates of TH that would suggest that the rule of faith is the guide for our interpretation, etc., and I think that this is deeply problematic.
I’m right there with you. I find myself nodding along with Francis Watson from time to time, but not really digging the way Stephen Fowl does it.
These conversations reminded me of Coogans 1994 article “The Great Gulf Between Scholars and the Pew” here: http://alpha.fdu.edu/~jbecker/bible/gulfscholarspew-condensed.html
Coogan is a bit more condescending I would say.
I’m glad you do what you do Daniel!
These have been great posts…challenging both those who spend the majority of their time in the academy, and yet still have a desire to serve and participate in their local community of faith, and for those who are not a part of the academy, but take reading the bible seriously, and live with the desire to serve their local community of faith as well. The point you made about biblical “definitions” (gotta love scare quotes) being more dynamic than the ones that are operative in most communities of faith. The ability to be deeply committed to God and to the biblical narrative while allowing for a more liquid or dynamic view of God–one that allows us to be in a constant state of re-thinking and re-working our view of God–is not present in very many church communities. So when those who study theology in an academic setting challenge the theological status quo, the result is exactly what you said it will be. Such a good post, and really critical and practical issues.
Thanks for running this blog and making historical interpretation of the Bible available for those of us outside academia but inside a church (and teaching children). I remember taking a few basic Bible classes in college and most of the class was centered around unlearning the unhistorical stuff Sunday school taught. I’d like the kids who come out of my program to be able to go into a Bible class and say, “of course!”
Matt, I appreciate hearing you say this! I’ve been really struck lately by how bad most of what we teach our kids is… I wish there were more consistency between preschool Sunday school and seminary! Things need to be age-appropriate, of course, but we should be setting them up for future learning, not setting them up to need to deconstruct and reconstruct quite so much.