Methods of Bible Study - GC Executive Committee

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

A Brief History of Adventist Hermeneutics - Mervyn Maxwell

This week, I (Dale) will summarize and review Mervyn Maxwell’s 1993 paper titled “A Brief History of Adventist Hermeneutics.” Maxwell divides his discussion into two rough categories: What are core Adventist hermeneutics? And what are not core Adventist hermeneutics? I'll summarize these two categories, and then take a look at some of the implications of Maxwell's analysis of the history of Adventist hermeneutics.

Core Adventist Hermeneutics
Mervyn Maxwell begins by stating that there is a difference in hermeneutic between what he labels Adventist “essential characteristic doctrines” and “nonessential secondary” ones. In other words, the motivations and methods of study that led to our core beliefs are not the same as the ones that have led to some other common Adventist beliefs.

Maxwell begins by describing early Adventists’ views on their interpretation methods or hermeneutics. The prime directive of these early Adventists was that scripture should be its own measure. Maxwell presents quotes about the importance of accepting a straight-forward interpretation of scriptures rather than mystical or “spiritualizing” approaches that simply made things more difficult to understand (such as the approach used by the early theologian Origen). In other words, the Bible should be read “literally”, but this literal reading should be done within the Bible’s own framework.

As to what this Adventist framework is, Maxwell shows how Adventist writers expanded on earlier reformers’ use of looking at typology in the Bible.  For example, while earlier reformers looked at verses pointing towards the cross, early Adventists also looked at types or examples pointing to a wide range of prophecies including the 2300 day prophecy and the literalness of the second coming.

As Adventists developed a richer in-Bible framework for interpretation, they continued and expanded on the reformers’ rejections of traditions from outside the Bible. Rejecting non-Biblical traditions led to the Adventist beliefs regarding the seventh-day Sabbath and the state of the dead (conditional immortality).

After early Adventists had arrived at these beliefs, they continued to study.  Following out all the implications of these beliefs led to a deeper understanding of the larger Biblical narrative. Studying the literal second coming, the literal judgement, and the narratives of Daniel and Revelation led to a strong understanding and emphasis on the over-arching "Great Controversy" narrative.  Adventists began to view all of their beliefs within this context. All of what are considered Adventist core beliefs are directly connected to this Great Controversy narrative: Sabbath, the sanctuary, state of the dead, the second coming and the spirit of prophecy.  It also informs Adventist understandings of creation, the nature of sin, salvation, the third angel’s message, prophecy, and so on. All these beliefs came out of a process that Maxwell describes as “follow[ing] basically the hermeneutical principles established during the Reformation” (209).

Hermeneutics Underlying Nonessential Views
In contrast to the processes that led to Adventist core beliefs, Maxwell lists two different motivations for belief that have not always led us to sound bible study or sound biblical beliefs: prophetic speculations and a desire to facilitate evangelism.

Being always ready to see confirmation of our beliefs regarding various prophecies and end-time events is a recipe for speculation. Adventists have fallen into this trap several times, the first time being 1844. In a similar vein Uriah Smith wanted to interpret Armageddon as a ‘local military engagement’ because world events at the time made such an interpretation possible. The case of speculation with the biggest modern impact was likely speculation about the second coming occurring following Adventist membership reaching 144,000. I suspect this event in our history still influences Adventist interpretations of words like ‘remnant.’ Likely modern interest in the 2520 could be lumped into this "speculation" category.

The second motivation Maxwell discusses is “Evangelistic Misapprehensions,” in other words, desires to make evangelism more effective. Maxwell gives the example of the conflict in 1888 over the identification of some of the horns in Revelation. Both sides held to similar hermeneutics or methods of reading the bible; however, the ‘against’ side seemed to be motivated strongly by evangelistic concerns: If we change our interpretation of one ‘horn,’ won’t this shake faith in our interpretations of others? This fear of being seen as changing or unsure on things seems to have direct parallels to an adolescent trying to solidify an identity so as to be attractive to the opposite sex, and within Adventism this tension has resulted in us having 28 fundamentals even as we decry creeds.

If we combine these motivations, speculation and evangelism, I think we can understand the seeming conflict between our motivation to have believers in every kindred, tongue and nation, and our becoming more and more resistant to ongoing Bible study and further development of our beliefs.

Looking at Question of Women’s Ordination
If I look at the immediate motivator for this study of Adventist hermeneutics, the debate over women’s ordination and the recent General Conference, it appears that most of what Maxwell has said has a direct bearing. First, the debate about ordination has ranged through both categories of hermeneutical approaches. Gender equality is a powerful movement in the world, as is resistance to it.  Depending on your location or community, taking a stand for or against the ordination of women has been portrayed as a necessary step for the winning of souls. Not only do people view their side as being necessary, but a large percentage of those involved consider the resolution of the issue to be a necessary step towards presenting a clear front for evangelism.  To paraphrase one African pastor at the GC: “When I am doing an evangelistic series, and a person asks me if the Adventists ordain women, or do not ordain women, what am I to answer?” The motivation of saving souls pushes us toward an immediate resolution, and leads to immediate conflict.

On the other hand, coming at this question from the direction of the Great Controversy narrative leads to an entirely different question: why do we have ordination at all, and what is it? It seems clear that much of our understanding of ordination is a result of not having entirely dispensed with tradition as a foundation for belief, as well as having not entirely thought through the implications of God’s stance on free-will and the meaning and place of authority within the plan of salvation. The question of male versus female seems to be peripheral at best to an understanding of the Great Controversy narrative. Maxwell points out that verses used today in support of women’s ordination, in particular Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”, are quoted out of context.  They are looked at neither within the context of the immediate chapter and book, nor within the larger framework of the Great Controversy.  In his view, this is a key mark of the questionable hermeneutics underlying non-core beliefs.

Future Questions
In light of Maxwell's story, it would appear that an obvious question to ask regarding why I hold any belief is "what are my motivations?" While motivations definitely do not invalidate a particular position, suspect motivations should definitely be reason enough to take a second look. Likewise, it seems that trying to understand how my beliefs connect to the Great Controversy is an important step towards making my beliefs coherent, rather than simply a disparate collection of assertions.

Maxwell, Mervyn C. "A Brief History of Adventist Hermeneutics." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 4, no. 2 (1993): 209-226. http://www.atsjats.org/publication/view/485

Biblical Hermeneutics 101 - Michael Zwaagstra

I (David) recommend that you simply read this article for yourself.  It is brief and simple.  In it, Zwaagstra analyzes the oft-quoted Jeremiah 29:13 ("For I know the plans I have for you...") to illustrate the importance of paying attention to context.  He considers two aspects of context: linguistic and cultural.  These are illustrated through simple, familiar stories.  Finally, he closes with the admonition that clearer understanding will motivate evangelism--the desire to share what we have learned.  The Biblical story really is that good.  I will trace Zwaagstra's argument before adding some analysis.

Summary
To begin with, Zwaagstra considers "linguistic context"--the relationship between the words or passage being studied and the larger passage or document within which it is situated.  He illustrates this through the story of "Goldilocks and the Three Bears"--pointing out that it would be a misinterpretation for us to conclude that the point of the story is that one-child families are best.  Considering the narrative as a whole, we can see that this is not the point of the story.  Likewise, he points out that Jeremiah 29:13 is situated within a larger promise of God to return the Israelites (as a national community) to their land, after seventy years.  It is not a promise to bless and prosper individual believers, as it is often understood and quoted.  Unfortunately, as he notes, this kind of "cherry-picking" of verses out of their context is common today.

After considering linguistic context, Zwaagstra moves deeper, into a discussion of "cultural context."  Considering the cultural context of the text allows deeper understanding and takes us further from the common usage of Jeremiah 29:13.  He points out that, in contrast with our individualistic Western culture, ancient Israelites conceived identity in terms of community.  Thus, the promise is not to any individual or even group of individuals, but rather to the community as a whole.  It is situated in the midst of national upheaval as Israel is conquered by Babylon, and many Israelites are killed.  God's promise "not to harm you" is to the nation, not to individuals in the nation who may well suffer and die before God's plan is fulfilled.  This is their "future" and "hope."  It cannot be properly interpreted without recognizing the communal identity of ancient Israelite culture.  Yet, he argues, we too often approach the Bible as if it were written for our 21st-century, Western minds by authors who share our values, beliefs, politics, and worldview.  That is simply not the case; we must pay attention to cultural context in the Bible.

In closing, Zwaagstra offers some practical suggestions or guidelines for our own Bible study.  Most importantly, he states, we must be humble and willing to learn.  "In contrast, using the Bible to prove a preconceived point or settle an argument is a surefire path to misinterpretation," he says.  The Bible is not a source of ammunition for ideological or social warfare.  If we use it as such, we fail to grasp the deeper implications for our lives--both individual and communal.

Analysis
I appreciated how Zwaagstra highlights key aspects of interpretation and explains them clearly and efficiently.  However, in addressing an Adventist audience, I wish he had spent more time attending to particular discussions within Adventism.  His illustrations stick to "safe" ground.  While I understand that avoiding controversy can allow you to reach a wider audience, that avoidance makes it difficult to understand how his ideas relate to everyday Adventist practices and discussions.  Additionally, I thought he took cheap shots at issues and groups outside of Adventism, rather than addressing our own inconsistencies and misinterpretations.  To me, this seems to reinforce a sense of us-vs-them (with "us" being better for apparently avoiding misinterpretation).  Even as he suggests we shouldn't study scripture simply to win arguments, he seems to be doing so.  But perhaps these are small caveats against the value of the main points he is explaining.

Something from this article that I believe relates to our ongoing study of hermeneutics is this: our major question should be "is this a good (strong, careful, wise, etc) interpretation?", rather than "is this a 'literal' interpretation?"  Too often, the debate within Adventism (and Christianity at large) is divided into "literal" and "higher-critical positions."  However, I believe this "two-party" understanding misses the point.  Our chief concern should not be whether an interpretation belongs to our "party", but whether it makes the best sense of the Bible.  One might argue that taking Jeremiah 29:13 out of context is reading it "literally," another might disagree--but that misses the point that understanding the passage in terms of individual prosperity is simply a bad interpretation, "literal" or not.  Hopefully, the rest of our study will clarify what is a "good" interpretation.

Zwaagstra, Michael. "Biblical Hermeneutics 101." Adventist Review Online.  http://www.adventistreview.org/141534-14

In the Beginning...

Hi, and welcome to our blog.  For those of you that don't know, one thing that came out of the recent Seventh-day Adventist General Conference discussion of women's ordination was a recognition that even though Adventists (in common with other Christians) study the same Bible, we often come to very different conclusions.  Thus, there was a call for the creation of a committee to study hermeneutics in the hope that a uniform hermeneutic will lead to a uniform theology.  This blog will explore this topic from a Biblical perspective, addressing the question of hermeneutics from a Biblical, not merely Adventist, perspective.

For those that are not familiar with scholar speak, hermeneutics is an area of study which focuses on the ideas and methods we use to interpret and understand various forms of communication--most often written texts, such as the Bible.  While this might seem a ridiculous thing to study, it is actually very important.  Depending upon our basic assumptions about the nature of the world, about the nature of language and about the nature of a given text, we can arrive at radically different conclusions from the same "evidence."  Relevant questions might include:

• who was the author?  were they favorable to the subject matter, or mocking it?  
• how was the author shaped by their environment?  are they addressing specific cultural issues or more general themes?  
• what was the author's worldview?  did they value exploration or equality or economy?
• why was this text written?  was it meant to instruct, to describe, to entertain, etc?
  what genre is this text or passage?  is the author quoting someone else, or stating an opinion?
• how might a contemporary reader understand this text?
• what use is a contemporary reader to make of it?
• how does the author talk about women or minorities?  does this undermine their credibility?
• was this text written by a corporate shill, a devotee, or a lunatic?
• is this text a translation?  if so, what would this word or concept mean in a culture that is foreign to our own?

This list is by no means exhaustive, but it does highlight some of the questions we face when we read.  Generally, when we read, we do not consciously attend to these concerns.  We assume that a person writing in English in the 21st century will probably share our basic worldview and will use particular words and ideas in ways that are more or less familiar to us.  That is usually true--though not always.  However, the further we move from a shared culture and language, the more we must pay attention to these concerns.  Shifting from Canada to America or to Britain may change what particular words mean.  Shifting to another language means we are not even using the same words, even though we may share the same history and culture.  Shifting to another time means we may use the same words to describe different experiences, or different words to describe the same experiences, and so on.  When we approach the Bible looking for a way of life, the way we answer those questions can profoundly impact our communities and our lives.  That is why hermeneutics matters.

On this blog, we will be reading through the various articles listed in Spectrum's Alphabetized Bibliography for the Adventist Hermeneutics Discussion.  Although the list is "Adventist," the questions are by no means exclusive to our denomination.  Ethan Allen has agree to join Dale and I (from Storying Life) as we read through these articles and provide accessible summaries for your reading pleasure.  We look forward to hearing your thoughts and questions as we pursue this study.  Wherever you are coming from, we hope you find this process helpful in your own studies.