It has long been the passion of my colleague Dr Mark D Thompson to defend the doctrine of the clarity of scripture.
I shoulda known it all along, but he is absolutely right, and timely.
In the name of 'hermeneutics' all sorts of crimes are being committed, frankly; and the trend even amongst Protestants is to exalt the clarity and authority of the church and its traditions over the scriptures (which are held to be dark, mysterious and indeterminate). Disagreement is taken as evidence that there is no clarity to be had.
For his part, John Webster says 'very simply, the church alone is not competent to confer authority on Holy Scripture, any more than it is competent to be a speaking churc before it is a hearing church, or competent to give itself the mandate to be apostolic.'
Webster then brilliantly restates the clarity of scripture, reminding us that 'reading scripture is inescapably bound to regeneration'. If there is dispute, or lack of clarity, it lies in the unwillingness we have to submit to the scriptures. This is not a philosophical matter, so much as an ethical and spiritual one.
It is worth noting that the clarity of scripture is not a Reformation innovation. Irenaeus addressed the Gnostics with their fanciful interpretational practices by asserting the plain meaning of the text of scripture. This doctrine has a very long tradition indeed.
BTW, Webster offers a convincing critique of JAK Smith's defence of hermeneutics, too!
10 comments:
Thank you for this, Parson!
As a Catholic, I'm embarrassed at some of the convoluted attempts by Catholic internet apologists to argue by Scripture alone for clearly extra-Biblical teachings.
As the great French poet, Charles Peguy, wrote: "the word of God is not a tangled ball of yarn"
Fred
Hi Michael: Does your colleague deal with inerrancy at all in the book? I'm looking for a good, readable and accessible book on inerrancy - any ideas?
No, he doesn't in this book.
Personally I think inerrancy is a bit of false trail, unlike clarity...almost every book I have seen proposing inerrancy I have disagreed with. The best book is probably 'The Trustworthiness of Scripture' (I think), ed by Trueman and Helm. Some good stuff in there.
Rod, we are singing from the same song-sheet! That's alarming, actually...;-)
yes, 'clarity' does not equal 'transparency', though it will imply I think some account of the meaningfulness of language as a vehicle for divine communication.
The other GREAT book on this is Wolterstorff's Divine Discourse. He's a legend.
It's good to hear someone defending the clarity of Scripture. It seems to be the case..to over generalise that the less trust someone has in the knowability of God and the clarity of Scripture, the less clear and easy to understand they tend to be!!!
What's the critique of JAK Smith?
Is this all in holy Scripture a dogmatic sketch? I really must get round to reading that.
Rod: I agree for the most part, but hermeneutical method merely "informed" by dogmatics (properly understood in turn as the exposition of Scripture by the church)? Don't think so. Our hermeneutics such as they are must be entirely shaped by Scripture, not merely an adaptation the trendiest scholarly novelty! (A few years ago NT whizzes like Mark Stibbe held that structuralism was the answer. Well that didn't last long. How long before academia gets bored of Speech-Act?)
Well, Smith as I understand argues that interpretation is a creational reality. Protestants are charged with espousing the myth of hermeneutical immediacy, in which interpretation is a post-lapsarian condition. This longing for immediacy is part of our Western devaluation of creation, says Smith. For his part, he suggests we understand interpretatioan and hermeneutical mediation as constitutive aspects of our human existence.
Webster says: well, there are historical problems, because the charge of Neo-platonism/gnosticism is not supported rigorously enough. But Doctrinal difficulties attend Smith: his critique of the commitment to immediacy 'ignores the revelational and pneumatological dimensions of the notion of Scripture's claritas, assuming that claritas can be understood simply as a text-property without the Spirit's work, or as a kind of hermeneutical equivalent of an over-realised eschatology.'
Webster also takes issue with Smith's account of creation. Firstly, it has a 'distinctly anthropological orientation...' Second and therefore, createdness is expounded philosophically rather than theologically with little reference to our continuig creaturely dependence on the triune God.
And, most tellingly, Smith is Arminian! IE< the human work of interpretation threatens to float free from talk of divine action... and 'the myth of immediacy is countered by a sort of hermeneutical Pelagianism...'
Tough stuff.
pp. 99-100 in Holy Scripture - A Dogmatic Sketch
Sounds like some good critiques, though I'm not sure this removes Smith's basic point about hermeneutics being creational. The human task of understanding can be understood theologically as to be done in dependence upon God (like filling and subduing and ruling). Smith's basic point, as I see it, is that the need for interpretation is based on finitude/createdness, not fallenness. Mediation is a good gift, though Webster makes an important point about the role of the Spirit (and presumably Christ) in the mediation of God.
Speaking of clarity, I also just came across this quote from Augustine.
Post a Comment