Stephen Fowl - Theological Interpretation of Scripture (review)

Stephen Fowl, in Theological Interpretation of Scripture, aims to survey the history and recent scholarship for theological interpretation, as well as guide the reader in what he considers the way forward. Fowl presents his argument in four primary chapters, preceded by an introduction and succeeded by a helpful chapter summarizing key figures in the theological interpretation dialogue.

In chapter one Fowl discusses the nature and place of Scripture in God’s drama of salvation. After surveying different attempts to use a Christological analogy for Scripture, Fowl argues that the more appropriate alternative is John Webster’s understanding of Scripture as “the triune God’s self-communication…directed to drawing humanity into ever deeper communion with God and each other” (9). Fowl emphasizes the divine authorship of scripture and claims that by rooting the formation of Scripture in God’s providence, “one can be more relaxed in approaching and analyzing the human process that led to the formation of Christian Scripture” (9). Although Fowl is right to recognize the importance of one’s doctrine of scripture for their interpretation of Scripture, his constructive attempt is theologically imprecise and wrongly downplays the human aspect of Scripture. Fowl broadens the concept of inspiration to a general view of providence, making no distinction between God’s revelation in history and scripture. Ironically, while this broad view of providence would allow for a great level of human agency, Fowl largely dismisses the human aspect of scripture, which is further displayed in his later treatment of historical criticism.

In Chapter two Fowl aims to “engage concerns that are often taken to be central to theological interpretation of Scripture”, namely historical criticism, biblical theology, and philosophical hermeneutics, which he says, “will not substantially advance the practice of theological interpretation of scripture” (14-15). Although Fowl launches several critiques against historical criticism and biblical theology, his overarching theme for both is that history should not take priority over theology in interpretation. The priority of history in biblical criticism has wrongly separated biblical studies and theology and while biblical theology has attempted to bridge this gap, Fowl claims that its historical emphasis situates it in the same modern camp as historical criticism. Despite resonating with speech act theory, Fowl rejects philosophical hermeneutics arguing that the author’s intention is unknowable and the intent of the divine author can only be interpreted through the church, not philosophy. The overarching problem of Fowl’s treatment of these different interpretive “concerns” is that Fowl ultimately sees each of them as being incompatible with theological interpretation. Fowl’s exclusive understanding of theological interpretation leads to detrimental reductionism that dismisses the value of historical criticism (79), biblical theology (24), and hermeneutics (53) all together. While Fowl sees each of these interpretive concerns as failing in advancing theological interpretation, his third chapters offers his constructive proposal that “believers should seek to regulate these tendencies ecclesially.” (51)

Fowl argues constructively in chapter three that the church should recover a pre-modern interpretation, employ a figural reading of scripture, and that ecclesial practices should play a central role in theological interpretation. Although Fowl ignores the historical aspects of pre-modern interpretation and questionably redefines the “literal sense”, perhaps the most controversial claim he makes in this chapter is the role of ecclesiology in theological interpretation. Among all the different aspects for theological interpretation, Fowl wants to “keep theological and ecclesiological concerns primary” (54, emphasis mine). Although emphasizing the church’s role in interpretation is not controversial, placing ecclesiology as a parallel priority with theology is not representative of most theologians in this “movement”. Fowl’s proposal to make the church the “regulative structure” (52) against sinful interpretation, “apart from a rigorous hermeneutical method,” however, does not take into account that the church itself is sinful.

The fourth chapter is both succinct and helpful in offering suggestions for the future of theological interpretation. Fowl says we need to bridge biblical studies and theology, change the shape of both graduate and ecclesial education, and explore possibilities of the sermon as a viable expression of theological interpretation.

In conclusion, in a movement that needs clarity and direction, Fowl has muddied the waters with his companion for theological interpretation. Fowl’s exclusive attitude toward other disciplines and his elevation of ecclesiological and ethical concerns suggest that his theological nuances are in reality a redefinition of what is known as “theological interpretation of scripture.”

Pendulum-Swinging Reductionism

Pendulum-Swinging Reductionism is one of the greatest dangers in Theology. Here's how it works: Someone argues for something unbiblical that swings the pendulum to the left. People who hold scripture highly react against this position, and rather than bringing it back to the biblical center, they overreact and swing the pendulum past the biblical center and too far to the right, often throwing the baby (or at least some important rubber duckies) out with the bathwater. I'll give three quick examples:

1) The atonement. Liberals reject any idea of a wrathful God who would actually punish someone (especially his own Son) for sin and opt instead for a Victory or Exemplary understanding of the cross . Many conservatives respond with a great desire to defend the historically orthodox view of propitiation, yet in doing so they make it the only important aspect of the atonement, whereas scripture gives a much fuller picture that clearly includes Victory and Exemplary themes.

2) The Social Gospel. In the 1930's many Christians got so excited about the Gospel's implications for society (social justice) that many of them forgot the content of the gospel itself. Many conservatives reacted by emphasizing personal salvation, often to the point of ignoring any biblical aspects of social justice because "that's what the liberals were doing".

3) Spiritual Gifts. This is a more practical example played out in the church and is quite simple. Many Christians have abused the use of spiritual gifts in a way that is not in line with I Cor 14. Other Christians, weirded out by these flamboyant displays of the Spirit, have reacted by ignoring the Holy Spirit all together.

The result of this pendulum swinging is reductionism, ultimately pitting biblical themes against one another (propitiation vs victory, personal salvation vs social justice, etc). We can see this pendulum swinging reductionism all over Christian history, and we must begin to see in ourselves the ways that we have overreacted to errors and reduced the fullness of truth in scripture.

"When I Survey the Wondrous Cross"

Isaac Watt's famous hymn was originally titled "Crucifixion to the World Through the Cross of Christ." The original version also contained the following verse:




His dying crimson, like a robe,
Spreads o'er his body on the tree;
Then am I dead to all the globe
And all the globe is dead to me.

May we never think of the cross of Christ without also remembering that Christ has called the Christian to "take up his cross daily and follow me." (Lk 9:23)

Chris Paul's Amazing Story

This is one of the best sports stories I've heard. When NBA Point Guard Chris Paul was a senior in highschool his grandfather was murdered outside his own home. Paul wasn't sure if he would play in his upcoming basketball game, until he decided he would use the game to honor his grandfather by scoring one point for each year of the 61 years that his grandfather lived. See it for yourself, it's amazing. http://tiny.cc/4hnDH

Narcithropy (Narcissim + Philanthropy)

Philanthropy is "in". It’s the hip thing these days to give away money (Gates), adopt kids (Brad & Angelina), micro-finance in Africa (Clinton), drink “fair-trade” coffee (Tully’s), and “go green” (Leo DiCaprio). Not that we can judge any of these peoples’ motives, but does anyone even consider whether motives even matter or not? One thing is for sure: Narcissism (obsessive love of self) dressed up as philanthropy (love for others) is still narcissism. Cultural expert Jim Gilmore went as far as creating his own word to accurately describe our American culture today: “Narcithropy.” If your good deeds for others is actually motivated by what you get out of it, that's not "love", it's "using" someone else to feel better about yourself and your reputation. This trend is all over our culture, but I saw a glimpse of it recently in a commercial for a new organization called "iparticipate". Their tag line is "Improve your health by helping others" and they have Gwenyth Paltrow saying, "Doing good for others, doing positive action, always comes back around and enriches your life. It's the biggest gift you could ever give yourself." Doing good for others for the sake of helping yourself isn't love. Love is not self-seeking (I Cor 13:5). "For everyone looks out for his own interests, not those of Jesus Christ." (Phil 2:21)

Confusing the Gospel with its Effects

In a recent interview http://tiny.cc/ZCalO Rob Bell defined evangelicalism as follows:

"I embrace the term evangelical, if by that we mean a belief that we together can actually work for change in the world, caring for the environment, extending to the poor generosity and kindness, a hopeful outlook. That's a beautiful sort of thing."

This quote shows the importance for recognizing the distinction between the gospel (euangelion) and its effects. Carson's recent words are particularly insightful:

"One must distinguish between, on the one hand, the gospel as what God has done and what is the message to be announced and, on the other hand, what is demanded by God or effected by the gospel in assorted human responses...The Bible can exhort those who trust the living God to be concerned with issues of social justice (Isa 2; Amos); it can tell new covenant believers to do good to all human beings, especially to those of the household of faith (Gal 6); it exhorts us to remember the poor and to ask, not "Who is my neighbor?" but "Whom am I serving as neighbor?" We may even argue that some such list of moral commitment is a necessary consequence of the gospel. But it is not the gospel...Failure to distinguish between the gospel and all the effects of the gospel tends, on the long haul, to replace the good news as to what God has done with a moralism that is finally without the power and the glory of Christ crucified, resurrected, ascended, and reigning." (Themelios 2009)

The Unveiled Heart of a Biblical Scholar Who Doesn't Know God

Notre Dame's recent conference on "The Character of God in the OT" sparked passionate and vigorous dialogue between atheists and Christians. The most poignant moment of the entire weekend, however, came not from a heated exchange between disagreeing parties but from the unsettling tension within the soul of one man. James Crenshaw, an Old Testament scholar from Duke Div. School, was busy critiquing another OT scholar when the following question was posed by a man in the audience: "Dr. Crenshaw, is your view of God in the OT any different from the atheists who have been arguing that the God of the OT is a monster?" The question seemed to strip the conference room of its academic veneer and provide a venue for this elderly man to bare his soul before all. As Crenshaw pondered the question in silence, the wrinkles on his face and the grey hair on his head signified that his answer would be one not of mere intellectual analysis but of life experience. Crenshaw's soft voice broke the silence, explaining how from his heart he deeply longed to read the scriptures in the way that he did when he was a child. Yet he admitted that his critical scholarship had led him to a place of distrusting the Bible and ultimately rejecting God. "I have spent my entire career of 40 years trying to reconcile these two beliefs [appreciation of the Bible and a rejection of God], and I must admit that I have utterly failed." Crenshaw sat in silence, the crowd in astonishment. I've heard of scholars like this, but had never looked face to face at the emptyness of a man who had dedicated his entire life to studying the Bible, yet whose heart was far from God. My sadness towards this man soon turned to a burden for Christ's church. This man, an Old Testament scholar who rejects the God of the Bible, has been training Christian pastors in seminaries for the last 40 years. The picture of Crenshaw in my mind gives me a desire to challenge the church in two ways. First, we must study the Bible not as an end in and of itself, but in order that we might know the God who has revealed himself to us through the scriptures. It is possible to know the Bible inside and out, yet be far from God (John 5:39). Second, the church desparately needs Godly men and women who will teach the Bible and train upcoming pastors in a way that leads to deep love for Jesus. May we love God with our hearts and minds and souls and strength.