The cart before the horse?

Among scholars and students today, the field of biblical interpretation is divided into two distinct yet overlapping categories: exegesis and hermeneutics [...]

For our purposes at this point, the most important thing is that in our contemporary way of interpreting the Bible, we begin with exegesis and only then turn to hermeneutics [...] We move from the narrow to the broad. And our reason for this is that we believe starting with the broad would lead us to read our own theological ideas into the passage rather than reading the passages own meaning out of its context [...]

At this point, we have to recognize that the way we are trying to ensure accuracy in biblical interpretation is fundamentally different from the way the early church went about the same task. The Fathers had no qualms whatsoever about reading preconceived theological ideas into a given passages, as long as they got those ideas from elsewhere in the Bible.

pp.109-110, Don Fairbairn, Life in the Trinity)

Observing how this works in Irenaeus and Augustine:

[For Ireneaus] the key to interpreting the parables (which he finds obscure and therefore difficult) is clearer statements elsewhere in Scripture and not the context of the parables themselves. And [for] Augustine, notice that when there is ambiguity about a certain passage, one should first consult the rule of faith (which he describes as both the clearer passages of Scripture and the church's authoritative statements about it), and only if that fails should one consult the context of the passage[:]

"When words used literally cause ambiguity in Scripture, we must first determine whether we have mispunctuated or misconstrued them. When investigation reveals an uncertainty as to how a locution should be pointed or construed, the rule of faith should be consulted as it is found in the more open places of the Scriptures and in the authority of the Church... But if both meanings, or all of them, in the event that there are several, remain ambiguous after the faith has been consulted, then it is necessary to examine the context of the preceding and following parts surrounding the ambiguous place."

On Doc., bk. 3, chap.2

(pp.112-113, Don Fairbairn, Life in the Trinity)

The Church of England in 1551

Edward VI on the throne, Thomas Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury, and Martin Bucer as Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge. The Church of England must have been pretty strong then... not like today...

an inspection of the diocese of Gloucester in 1551 revealed that 168 priests out of a total of 311 were unable to recite the Ten Commandments; 34 did not know who had formulated the Lord's Prayer, and 10 did not know it by heart.

(p.239, Martin Greschat, Martin Bucer: A Reformer and His Times)

... maybe not then.

The roots of Evangelicalism

Colin Gunton mentions in passing that:

Evangelicalism arises out of: (a) the Reformation and (b) Pietism.

I've heard that before but cannot remember where. The question is do we know our own history? How far are we aware of where we have come from.

I would say we are doing better at remembering one of our parents (the Reformation) and less good at remembering the other. I would even go so far as to say that Evangelicalism may be suffering for it.... but that may just be from my limited view in the corner I inhabit. But there is room for us to remember all our history much more than we do.

Once we remember we may then attempt to reflect.

Colin Gunton comments that to the extent Evangelicalism relies on the Reformation it is more objective, and on Pietism more subjective. PT Forsyth comments:

'after the Reformation period, [theologians] dwelt upon justification until they lost sight of sanctification altogether. Then the great pietistic movement had to arise in order to redress the balance.' (The Work of Christ)

...I wonder whether I should read Pia Desideria... its only 136 pages apparently.

Reformers on the frequency of the Lord's Supper

Calvin

'No meeting of the church should take place without the Word, prayers, partaking of the Supper and almsgiving' (Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.44).

'the Lord's Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians' (Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.46)

Luther

'As oft as ye do it, it is nevertheless implied that we should do it often; and it is added for the reason that He wishes to have the Sacrament free, not limited to special times, like the Passover of the Jews, which they were obliged to eat only once a year, and that just upon the fourteenth day of the first full moon in the evening, and which they must not vary a day. As if He would say by these words: I institute a Passover or Supper for you which you shall enjoy not only once a year, just upon this evening, but often, when and where you will, according to every one's opportunity and necessity, bound to no place or appointed time; although the Pope afterwards perverted it, and again made a Jewish feast of it.' (Luther, Large Catechism, The Sacrament of the Altar)

'people should be told in sermons to receive Communion three or four times a year in order that, strengthened by the Word, them may afterward fall asleep' (p.305, Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel ed. and trans. Theodore G. Tappert [1539])

'we should not compel anyone to believe or to receive the Sacrament and should not fix any law or time or place for it. Instead, we should preach in such a way that the people make themselves come without our law and just plain compel us pastors to administer the Sacrament to them....if they believed that they possessed so much evil and needed so much good, they would not neglect the Sacrament...they would come on their own, rushing and running to it; they would compel themselves to come and would insist that you give them the Sacrament' (Luther, Preface to the Small Catechism)

'the whole congregation should come together on Sundays, and mass and Vespers be sung, as has been customary. In both services there should be preaching for the whole congregation, in the morning on the Gospel for the day, in the evening on the Epistle...If anyone desires to receive the sacrament at thhis time, let it be administered at a time convenient to all concerned.

'The daily masses should be completely discontinued; for the Word is important annd not the mass. But if any should desire the sacrament during the week, let mass be held as inclination and time dictate; for in this matter one cannot make hard and fast rules.' (p.377, 'Concerning the Order of Public Worship' in Selected Writings of Martin Luther: 1520-1523, ed. Theodore G. Tappert)

Others

'For among us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved.' (Melanchthon, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article 14.1)

'The day when the Lord's Supper is ministered, which commonly is used once a month, or so oft as the congregation shall think expedient' (Knox, Genevan Book of Order (1556))

In Zwingli's Zurich the 'communion service was to be held four times in the year, - at Easter, Whitsunday, autumn, and Christmas' (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume VIII: Modern Christianity. The Swiss Reformation, The Reformation In Zurich. 1519-1526, § 20. The Reformed Celebration of the Lord’s Supper)

Protestantism and pluralism

The Protestantism of the reformers is different from contemporary Christianity in many ways. It is particularly different from Evangelicalism surrounding the issue of pluralism.

1. Exclusive where we are inclusive

The term Protestant comes from the Protestation at Speyer. This was a protest by the Protestant princes at the Emperor's insistence that the Mass be permitted in all the territories of the Holy Roman Empire. The protest was not directly at the denial of the rights of the evangelicals to worship but at the idea that two rites (evangelical and Roman) may be permitted in the same region. It was inconceivable to them that they Christian princes could allow worship that denied the Gospel (i.e. the Mass). The truth was universal and pluralism cannot be permitted if a prince has the power to prevent it.

This is clearly different to the view of almost everyone today, whether Christian or not. Freedom of religion is one of the most basic rights of citizens in the West. Interestingly the first emergence of this idea in England was in Cromwell's (Puritan) Commenwealth.

2. Inclusive where we are exclusive

The other thing that is striking as a twenty-first century Christian reading the Reformers is that they were not separatists.

Martin Luther as late as 1920 presents his book The Freedom of a Christian to the pope appealing to him to preach the teachings of the Reformation! Martin Luther, nor any of the Reformers that I can tell, felt compelled to leave the Roman Catholic church. Rather they considered that the Church of Rome left them and the teaching of the Early Church. At least that was how it was understood by the Protestants. I think in this the Reformers paralleled Paul's practice in mission. He started in the Synagogues time after time and usually only started preaching apart from them when they had ejected him.

If the church is ever in the news today it is because of new threats of divisions and threatened separation. When considering the debate within Anglicanism today, none of the Reformers would act like some (but not all) of their supposed followers do today. They threaten to split from the Church unless the bible is obeyed by the authorities within the Church. The Reformers trusted the Word to do it's work, and as long as they weren't actually prevented from preaching that Word they looked forward to the renewal of the fallen Church of which they were a part.

Interestingly the first major separations from the Church of England were by (some) Puritans.

Ooo, I have so much more to say about ecumenicalism (e.g. what we can learn from the Donatists, Justification by faith as an ecumenical doctrine, the possibilities for evangelism and church discipline) but it is probably not worth saying.

In the end...

I don't know whether modern day evangelicals are more in the right than the first evangelicals but one thing is for sure 'the past is another country'.

Church history in 3 steps

According to Jim 'shine on you crazy diamond' Jordan you can look at the development of church history (or at least it's theology) like this:

• Step 1: Develop the theology of the Trinity (The Early Church).
• Step 2: Once you have done step 1 you now have the ability to develop the theology of the atonement (The Middle Ages).
• Step 3: Once you have done step 2 you now have the ability to develop the theology of how the atonement can be appropriated (Post-Reformation).

No doubt this is horribly reductionistic. However, my extremely limited forays into church history seem at least to suggest there is some truth in it. The early church especially seem to have an amazingly undeveloped doctrine of justification. Anyway, I don't have time to reflect on this further, although I am increasingly convinced of some kind of developmental view of church history (see my post on Schaff). It only seems sad that at present in Europe and North America past developments in understanding of the bible's teaching on atonement and justification are being undermined; not so much by questioning, which must always continue, but by failing to seriously consider the writings of those who thought much more deeply about such things than some at present. I wonder what people are thinking about in the rest of the Christian church, perhaps that will be where new developments will come.

Protestant Scholasticism or Reformed Orthodoxy

This may not interest many, but there is a long-running debate about how we should regard seventeenth century Protestant theology. Martin Downes quotes Richard Gaffin challenging the prevailing negative assessment in a recent post. I have no opinion on the matter, not knowing enough to comment, but thought I would just note down a quotation from Philip Schaff which shows what this negative assessment actually looks like and also shows that it the attitude has been around for a while.

The seventeenth century is the period of Protestant scholasticism. It furnishes a parallel to the Catholic scholasticism of the Middle Ages, but is much richer in biblical learning. Its exegesis bears the same relation to the exegesis of the Reformers (henceforward revered as protestant Fathers) as the medieval exegesis to the patristic. It has the prevailing character of reproduction, compilation, and confessional contraction. It was based on a mechanical theory of verbal inspiration or dictation, which was most minutely formulated, and acted as a check upon independent research. An infallible Book was set over against an infallible Church. The Protestant Confessions of Faith acquired the authority of Catholic tradition. Exegesis was controlled by dogmatic systems and made subservient to polemic confessionalism. The Bible was used as a repository of proof-texts, without discrimination between the Old and New Testaments, and between the different books. A vast amount of patient, pedantic, antiquarian learning was accumulated.

(p.215f, Theological Propaedeutic)

One thing I do wonder a little is whether a difference between the Puritan theology of Britain and the continental Protestant theologians.

The Principle of Protestantism

I've just finished The Principle of Protestantism by Philip Schaff. It's a fascinating little book. It was delivered as an inauguration address in German, when Schaff was just 25 and newly emigrated to America from Germany to take up a post in a new seminary with just one other member of the teaching staff. Schaff would become one of the most important Church Historians of the 19th century, and freshly landed in America he had plenty to say for himself.

Most striking to me were three (interconnected) things that run throughout the book:

1. An incredibly positive evaluation of other church traditions then and in the past, coupled with a strong belief in the truth of reformed protestantism.
2. The importance of the church uniting, yet a understanding that protestant distinctives not be compromised in any way.
3. That the church is growing and developing in life and doctrine throughout history.

This Hegelian influenced, absolute confidence in progress is astonishing. As Christians we often hear about how the liberal belief in progress has been destroyed by the two world wars of the 20th century, but I have never read it so strongly held. For Schaff "Protestantism is the principle of movement, of progress in the history of the church; progress, not such as may go beyond the Bible and Christianity, but such as consists in an ever-extending knowledge of the Bible itself, and an ever-deepening appropriation of Christianity as the power of a divine life, which is destined to make all things new" (p. 201, emphasis his).

However, Schaff is no naive optimist as 'it must not be forgotten however, in connection with this that there is a corresponding movement also on the part of evil, towards that which is worse, Light and darkness, the wheat and the tares, grow together till their development shall become complete' (p.222).

This is strange to my ears, and I don't know what to make of it.

This principle of progress runs throughout the book and informs all of his observations on the history of the Church. Protestantism he sees not as the rediscovery of the truth held by the church fathers, but as a development of doctrine (he lists justification by faith, and the authority of scripture, as the material and formal principle of the Reformation) against a church which thought it had the truth nailed down, and the infiniteness depths of God with it. He finds the two 'diseases' of the church of his day to be rationalism and sectarianism. And yet he finds God working in both. The scientific method is a wonderful gift to the church to aid its understanding of the bible and the world - and yet rationalism is still a deadly disease to war against. All the different denominations and nationalities (America as melting pot comes through very clearly) have lessons for each other which must not be reduced to common-denominator Christianity for the sake of unity - and yet the division in the church is a horrendous sin.

The trouble is, I just don't know whether I can accept the idea of historical progress which for Schaff is such a fruitful way of understanding God's working in the world. However, I can't think of an argument against it of the top of my head.

PS Incidentally the other fascinating thing about Schaff, which I have found in many 19th century writers is that he is more than willing to make sweeping generalisations about the character of different nations. In the different nations he is happy to see the strengths (which he hopes will be combined in America), but he is clear that he thinks Germany is pretty great. Here is a taster:

the proper home of Protestant theology is Germany, and hence we may say that those who refuse to take account of German theology, set themselves in fact against the progress of Protestantism...We wish not to depreciate in the least the merits acquired in former ties, by the Dutch and the English in particular, in the way of biblical study...The German is always disposed rather to put an undue value on what is foreign, and has long since appropriated the results of these investigations and worked them into the process of his own cultivation. But what is all this beside the gigantic creations of German theology! All its heresies cannot destroy my respect for it...for only an archangel can become a devil. As England and America would not have been able at all to produce so fearful an enemy of Christianity as David Fridrich Strauss, so must they have been much less able to meet him with a proper refutation; and I shudder at times to think of the desolation his writings must occasion, if they should come to be much read-which may God prevent-in this country. (p.202)

You can't help but smile a little.