Christians are called to engage in culture, representing the reign of God in each sphere of society. The grace that the Lord bestowed upon His elect demands the whole of them, it is a total transformation of being to be lived out. More specifically, it plays a role in their spiritual development and knowledge of God. For the purposes of this paper, an understanding of the following philosophies will be assumed and the merits of which will not be discussed: speech act theory, Calvinistic common and saving grace, Dooyeweerd’s non-reductionistic modal aspects and Abraham Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty. From these philosophical positions on interpreting scripture and understanding Christian spirituality, the paper will begin by laying out the philosophical foundations and relevance of Wolterstorff’s double hermeneutics and Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty. Upon defining these terms, the paper will transition into the integration of these philosophical understandings of biblical interpretation and sphere sovereignty. The position this paper will take is the double hermeneutic approach to biblical interpretation and Christian engagement within the sovereign spheres facilitate each other in gaining knowledge of God.
Modern hermeneutics reduced the Bible to a human made text that could be understood through human designed systems and structures. Biblical scholars typically tried to address issues of authorial intent, original audience’s interpretation and the historical events to which the text refers. Theologians then came along and selected certain passages that supported the general theologies that they supported. Each of them did there own thing without much intermixing.[1] In response to this reductionism and division, Wolterstorff responded, in a series of articles, with a double hermeneutic approach. Wolterstorff’s double hermeneutic combined the interpretation of each text on its own terms with the theological pursuit of treating the Word of God as one book. Wolterstorff focused much of his attention on the issue does God speak and how do Christians interpret this speech. Wolterstorff, started by arguing that God speaking is different from God inspiring the biblical author (as it would just be God inspiring and the author speaking) or God revealing himself to the author (as most of what is revealed is not spoken but implied). [2] Wolterstorff then argued from speech act theory that, even though God does not have a body, he can still speak, while not through locutionary speech but through illocutionary speech.[3] The speech act that God participates in takes on a double agency with the speech of God being proclaimed through deputized speech and appropriated speech.3 The contemporary audience in seeking to interpret God’s speech at the first hermeneutical level interprets each biblical writer and work separately; however, because humans are fallible a second level is needed in which the work is compared with other works in the Cannon.[4] Interpreters should still read scripture with a hermeneutic of trust rather than suspicion. However, only in the broader narrative is God’s infallible speech distinguished from the authors. Wolterstorff goes on to argue that knowledge of God is necessary for understanding God’s speech.[5] Specifically, when it comes to whether one interprets the text to be literal or figurative. For instance, ones conception of God will play a role in whether they believe God literally has wings or if such passages are to be seen more symbolically. One comes to this knowledge of God through living faithfully with God and through faithful theological and philosophical reflections; each shaped by the church, both past and present, and multiple other factors that make up ones worldview. The interpretation process then goes as such,
“We interpret in the light of convictions we already have about God. In the course of our interpretation we then learn new things about God—and we find that some of the things we already believed don’t work out in the process of interpretation. With these new and corrected beliefs in mind, we go on to interpret other, perhaps more difficult passages. Thereby we learn more things and again get some of the convictions we already had corrected. And so it goes. It’s more like a spiral than a straight line.”[6]
One potential pitfall for the theory came from Merold Westphal. Westphal argued that even illocutionary speech still required a body.[7] He argued that Wolterstorff, through speech act theory, only confirm what Maimonides and Schneider argued for the necessity of a body for communication. In order to prove God speaks requires going beyond speech act theory to an ontology of participation and analogy.[8] Humanity is made in the image of God; therefore, human speech forms are miniscule in comparison to the speech of God. God’s speech does not fit human categories. Westphal argued this is exactly how it should be, a God who is both idiosyncratic (independent from human social conventions) and personal (able to relate with creation).[9] With this caveat to Wolterstorff’s theory, the double hermeneutic is preserved and made even more relevant.
As Christians learn to hear God, what they learn from God must be put into practice, not just in the church but also in all spheres of life. Early in church history dualism between sacred and secular aspects of life emerged, reducing all things into polarized aspects of life. Kuyper’s sphere sovereignty and Dooyeweerd’s modal aspects sought to end the dualisms and reductionism. They declared that by the common grace of God all things are good and useful for God’s kingdom purposes. Sphere sovereignty is an interpretation of scripture, which argues that every square inch of creation belongs to God.[10] Catholic theory of subsidiarity is similar to sphere sovereignty; however, under subsidiarity theory there is a hierarchy of authority. In sphere sovereignty, on the other hand, Dooyeweerd argued that the differences between the spheres are more a difference of complexity, with each sphere building on the others, rather than of authority.[11] It is important to recognize the skills associated with a specific mode of authority within a particular sphere do not automatically transfer to other spheres.[12]
While not every mode of authority transfers between spheres, there are many parallels and connections between biblical interpretation and Christian spirituality. Herman Bavinck a contemporary of Abraham Kuyper pointed many of these connections out. Bavinck argued from an antievidentialist position when it came to matters of transcendence. God graces the interpreter with knowledge of Himself. [13] God gives the interpreter faith and testifies that scripture is the Word of God. The interpreter ultimately must go back to a sense of divinity or a divine instinct when interpreting a text. This knowledge comes from the Christian life and the environment in which God places them. The truth of this is rooted in faith, and cannot be proven through human made systems as it goes beyond human understanding.
Karl Barth took a similar stance. While he took seriously the historical interpretation approach of modernism, he understood that scriptures transcendent matters require God’s Word and Spirit to make its meaning understood.[14] His recognition that scripture is a human witness to divine revelation accounted for the modern questions of historicity and the spiritual questions of divine inspiration. He saw scripture as a testimony to God’s action throughout history proclaiming the good news of God’s salvation through the incarnate Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The attitude one should take to biblical interpretation is one of faith and obedience, depending on God to reveal the mystery in the text. Exegesis therefore starts with a texts relationship to the themes as revealed by the Spirit. For Barth both Christian life and biblical interpretation relies upon total dependence on God. There is no natural knowledge of God by which just anyone can interpret the text, but only when God makes Himself known to an interpreter are their eyes opened to the meaning of the text. Such anthropological interpretations would place the onus on humanity to try to understand the transcendent matters in the text. Proper exegesis involves an ontology of God, faith and prayer. The church’s role is not to speak as if it had an infallible interpretation rather surrender it to God to provide for them what they need to know. Barth showed the need to extend the non-reductionistic philosophies behind sphere sovereignty into biblical interpretation. Scripture cannot be reduced to the same level as other texts nor interpreted by the same hermeneutical methodologies. It also illustrates how total dependence upon God is essential for interpretation and Christian engagement.
Operating under these philosophical approaches to biblical interpretation and Christian spirituality, it becomes apparent that adequate interpretation of scripture is essential for effective Christian engagement in every sovereign sphere, such that Christians might represent the reign of God. The church represents the reign of God as God’s community, as God’s servants and as God’s messengers.[15] God created humanity in the image of God, from this a fundamental relatedness emerges that bond humanity together.[16] The Christian bond goes even deeper in order that the church might be a light to the nations. This is often done through servitude. The church is called to act as servant leaders, exercising authority “only insofar as one is under authority.”[17] The church must also testify to the reign of God with an unembarrassed boldness.[18] As a deputized agent of God, the Christian speaks on God’s behalf, proclaiming the knowledge one has received from interpreting His Word. This must be qualified with the recognition that while the church errors it remains Christ’s body on earth. The interpretation of God’s Word must occur within the church, not outside,[19] and then the message is carried outside the church.
God does speak outside of scripture. Augustine of Hippo, in his famous conversion, heard in a children’s game “take and read” which inspired him to read a passage in Paul’s letters that ministered to him and converted him wholeheartedly to Christianity.[20] Listening to God is relevant in every aspect of ones life, not just reading scripture. It is in ones daily walk that God teaches aspects of Himself. These lessons provide a lens to read His Word. Therefore, there is some back and forth between ones daily life and interpretation of scripture, with each affecting the other. With the recognition that in common grace, all of creation is God’s, this is something that to be embraced. However, it also forces a recognition of ones own fallibility. As the church proclaims the reign of God, God only deputizes and appropriates the speech. Therefore, in order to see the speech of God through the church one must look at the broader picture of the fellowship of believers throughout history. Christians in each sphere therefore speak as fallen deputized and appropriated vassals for God. However, when taken together, the speech of God becomes clearer.
Modern hermeneutical philosophy reduced scripture to author, audience, event, and text, it was therefore necessary to move beyond this reductionism to put the transcendent back into the picture. This is not to say that human intellect does not play a role in interpreting scripture, this comes in at the first level, but that human knowledge in and of itself is not sufficient for understanding the transcendental material in scripture. The same is true of modern Christianity’s dualistic philosophy needing to be corrected with sphere sovereignty. The neo-Calvinist reaction against the reductionism of modern philosophy shows why and how philosophy matters in these areas. There is also many areas in which Christian engagement in the world and biblical interpretation influence each other including the importance of God’s leading and directing in the lives of the elect in such a way that they grow in knowledge of Him. The growth in knowledge of God facilitates the Christian duty to represent the reign of Christ as deputized and appropriated vassals of God. Remaining as open questions are the merits of the philosophies used in the paper and a way to gauge the strength of an interpretation under the double hermeneutic methodology.
(Computer Generated Word Count: 1963)
Bibliography
Bibliography
Dempsey, Michael T. 2007. "Biblical Hermeneutics and Spiritual Interpretation: The Revelatory Presence of God in Karl Barth's Theology of Scripture". Biblical Theology Bulletin. 37, no. 3: 120-131.
Guder, Darrell L. Missional Church; A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America . Michigan
Michielin, Maico 2008. "Bridging the Gulf between Biblical Scholars and Theologians: Can Barth and Wright Provide an Answer?" Scottish Journal of Theology. 61, no. 4: 420-434.
Mouw, Richard J. Abraham Kuyper A Short and Personal Introduction. Michigan
Newbigin, Lesslie. Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture. Grand Rapids , Mich
Van Til, K.A. 2008. "Subsidiarity and Sphere-Sovereignty: A Match Made in . . . ?" THEOLOGICAL STUDIES. 69, no. 3: 610-636.
Westphal, Merold. 2001. "On Reading God the Author". Religious Studies. 37, no. 3: 271-291.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 25 September 2000. “The God Who Speaks.” The Banner. 26-28.
9 October 2000. “How Can God Speak.” The Banner. 26-28.
23 October 2000. “Interpreting God’s Speech.” The Banner. 26-28.
6 November 2000. “Knowing God and Interpreting God’s Word.” The Banner. 22-24.
2010. "Herman Bavinck--proto Reformed epistemologist." Calvin Theological Journal 45, no. 1: 133-146.
[1] Michielin, Maico 2008. "Bridging the Gulf between Biblical Scholars and Theologians: Can Barth and Wright Provide an Answer?" Scottish Journal of Theology. (61, no. 4) 420.
[2] Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 25 September 2000. “The God Who Speaks.” (The Banner.) 26-28.
[3] Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 9 October 2000. “How Can God Speak.” (The Banner.) 26-28.
[4] Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 23 October 2000. “Interpreting God’s Speech.” (The Banner.) 26-28.
[5] Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 6 November 2000. “Knowing God and Interpreting God’s Word.” (The Banner.) 22-24.
[6] Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 6 November 2000. “Knowing God and Interpreting God’s Word.” (The Banner.) 23.
[7] Westphal, Merold. 2001. "On Reading God the Author". Religious Studies. (37, no. 3) 272.
[8] Westphal, Merold. 2001. "On Reading God the Author". Religious Studies.( 37, no. 3) 273.
[9] Westphal, Merold. 2001. "On Reading God the Author". Religious Studies. (37, no. 3) 276.
[10] Van Til, K.A. 2008. "Subsidiarity and Sphere-Sovereignty: A Match Made in . . . ?" THEOLOGICAL STUDIES. (69, no. 3) 624.
[11] Van Til, K.A. 2008. "Subsidiarity and Sphere-Sovereignty: A Match Made in . . . ?" THEOLOGICAL STUDIES. (69, no. 3) 635.
[12] Mouw, Richard J. Abraham Kuyper A Short and Personal Introduction. (Michigan
[13] Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 2010. "Herman Bavinck--proto Reformed epistemologist." Calvin Theological Journal (45, no. 1) 133-146.
[14] Dempsey, Michael T. 2007. "Biblical Hermeneutics and Spiritual Interpretation: The Revelatory Presence of God in Karl Barth's Theology of Scripture". Biblical Theology Bulletin. (37, no. 3) 120.
[15] Guder, Darrell L. Missional Church; A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America . (Michigan
[16] Newbigin, Lesslie. Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture. (Grand Rapids , Mich
[17] Guder, Darrell L. Missional Church; A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America . (Michigan
[18] Newbigin, Lesslie. Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture. (Grand Rapids , Mich
[19] Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 6 November 2000. “Knowing God and Interpreting God’s Word.” (The Banner.) 24.
[20] Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 25 September 2000. “The God Who Speaks.” (The Banner.) 26.
No comments:
Post a Comment