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

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