This week, I (David) read through the so-called "Rio Document" which has been the foundational statement on Adventist hermeneutics since 1986. If one were to attempt hermeneutics-by-numbers, this would be the rulebook. It presents, in a numbered series of propositions and statements, a legal-styled outline of Adventist hermeneutics. During the recent WO discussion, all parties referred back to this document; however, differences of interpretation meant it could not serve to ground a uniform understanding of scripture. This is not to say that no statement can, but that insofar as Adventist "statements" are simply that, and not creeds, they tend to emerge from agreement, rather than result in it. But I digress.
Summary
The document is broken into five sections, each with a distinct purpose and format: Preamble, Presuppositions, Principles, Methods and Conclusion. The preamble provides context for the document--within Adventism and in relation to academia. Most notably, it explicitly rejects the historical-critical method, identified as based on presuppositions which "reject the reliability of accounts of miracles and other supernatural events narrated in the Bible." This point of divergence is critical for a church that claims God's direct and ongoing involvement in human history. From this point, the document outlines an "Adventist" position.
The next section, "Presuppositions Arising From the Claims of Scripture," focuses on two points: "Origin" and "Authority." The first section addresses, in brief, the topic of revelation-inspiration--emphasizing the "indivisible union of human and divine elements" and pointing toward a wholistic, contextual method of study. This stakes a space between a literalism which would reject the human aspects and a liberalism which would reject the divine. Under "Authority," the document reiterates the peculiar divine-human nature of the Bible as an expression and/or means of divine revelation, revealing God's work in human history and His will for our lives. In short, the Bible is authoritative insofar as it reveals God's will and purpose in our world. Notably, and controversially, the statement contends that "for example, chapters 1-11 of Genesis are a factual account of historical events." Such a loaded and controversial statement deserves greater consideration than as an "example" of the Bible's historical authority.
Under "Principles for Approaching the Interpretation of Scripture," the document articulates what seem to be rather more pastoral and/or dogmatic concerns: the Holy Spirit's role in interpretation and application, the importance of "faith" for meaning, and the importance of a desire to learn rather than simply prove a point. These are certainly excellent points, insofar as they outline an orientation to the text and a way of studying. Yet, I wonder whether we truly live up to "be[ing] willing to submit all presuppositions, opinions, and the conclusions of reason to the judgment and correction of the Word itself." It seems this is generally understood to represent a vague attitude, rather than a serious practical concern. I wish this section was more fully developed.
"Methods of Bible Study" is the longest and most technical portion of the document. It consists of a series of brief statements and lists outlining basic hermeneutic concerns: Bible version and importance of original texts, plan of study, attention to the "simple" meaning, the central themes of Christ and the Great Controversy, the Bible as "its own interpreter," attention to linguistic and historical contexts, recognition of literary styles, the importance of grammar and sentence construction, Ellen White's relationship to interpretation, use of commentaries, principles for interpreting prophecy, reconciling differences between parallel accounts, recognition of cultural distance (we don't live in 1st century Israel), and finally, the need for application. Most of these points are very brief, with notable exceptions concerning prophecy, parallel accounts and cultural distance. The section on prophecy is a list of steps, presumably to be followed in arriving at a correct interpretation of prophecy (although perhaps not necessarily). The other two sections provide lengthy considerations of particular concerns, with examples. They are noteworthy for these careful explanations (and perhaps indicative of general misunderstandings or even disregard for these concerns).
Finally, the conclusion of the document articulates the relationship between the Bible and the Incarnation--reiterating the divine-human union and the need to consider both influences within the text. The document closes by stating that "A committed Christian will use only those methods that are able to do full justice to the dual, inseparable nature of Scripture, enhance his ability to understand and apply its message, and strengthen faith."
Analysis
As a statement of position, this document seems similar in function to the Adventist Statement of Fundamental Beliefs. Rather than clearly outlining a complete system of theology, it appears to represent an attempt to reduce complex historical and cultural understandings into a series of abstracted statements. As such, it raises nearly as many questions as it answers. For example, what does it mean to say a Bible study method should "enhance [one's] ability to understand and apply its message" or to "strengthen faith"? These points seems so vague as to be almost meaningless. While I believe they were written with good intentions, they seem to be mere platitudes, especially in the current volatile debate about Biblical interpretation. I'm certain both "liberals" and "conservatives" could argue that their methods achieve these outcomes, yet that does nothing to help us negotiate significant differences of interpretation. The document is certainly well-meaning, but the lack of clear examples, both narrative and practical, (especially in relation to Adventist interpretations of Scripture) creates ambiguity. Thus, differing interpretations of our statement on interpretation leave us no closer to resolving our interpretive differences.
However, after all this, I appreciate this document for emphasizing what I think is the most important contribution of Adventism to Biblical hermeneutics: a careful attention to the divine-human nature of Scripture and Christ. This centered approach provides a much-need alternative to the current binary opposition between a "literalism" which all-but-denies human involvement in the name of divine sovereignty, and a "higher-criticism" which all-but-denies divine involvement in the name of naturalism and human sovereignty. (Unfortunately, "literalism" is all-but-ignored in this document, opening a regrettable imbalance in our perspective). If Christianity is about the restoration of a proper relationship between human and divine (as I believe it is), we must be consistent in our application of that idea (or hermeneutic) to all aspects of our theology--beginning with our primary theological text.
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Executive Committee. "Methods of Bible Study." Seventh-day Adventist World Church.
http://www.adventist.org/en/information/official-%20statements/documents/article/go/0/methods-of-bible-study
No comments:
Post a Comment