Bible Study Notes # 3
Why Exegetical
Confusion?
|
W |
ithin the broad Churches of God tradition, there are three
major streams of theological thought: The Church of God (Seventh Day), the
Worldwide Church of God, and the now myriad “Armstrongian”
Churches of God. (I use the term “Armstrongian”
because most of these churches embrace at least some variation on the theme of
Herbert W. Armstrong’s doctrines. The major differences between groups here
involve leadership and organizational structure.) The COGSD is the largest and
oldest of the three groupings. Within the Armstrongian
circle, it was commonly known as the “
The second largest is the neo-Worldwide Church of God.
The smallest group of the three adheres to the Armstrongian tradition. From this we may deduce that more church members and ministers have opted for the new Evangelical approach than for the old Armstrongian one.
Within these three traditions, there exist varying levels of exegetical skill and understanding. (“Exegesis” means “interpretation.” It is derived from the Greek word exegeisthai, which means to “draw out” or “explain.” It is the act of interpreting or explaining the meanings of verses and passages in Scripture. An “exegete” is a person skilled in the process of exegesis – that is, drawing out the meaning from Scriptural texts.)
Essentially, there are within all churches three layers of exegetical expertise: the lay level, the pastoral level and the scholarly level. Within the Armstrongian Churches of God, true, well-trained, scholars are in short supply. The neo-Worldwide organization is beginning to produce a new generation of scholars, all of the members of which seem to bring to the exegetical table a limited Evangelical perspective.
Generally speaking, the pastoral level has been the level from which most Scriptural understanding has been passed on. Church members are not generally exposed to scholarly output. As earlier noted, within the Armstrongian ministry, there are few, if any, true scholars. For the most part, this group is mistrustful of “outside” theological scholarship. (Note: There is a difference between simply being “scholarly” and being a well-educated Ph.D. in some specialized field of scholarship. There are many scholarly individuals within the three traditions, but few fully accredited PhD’s.)
The Church of God Seventh Day has its own seminary and its own standards of scholarship. I am not familiar with the personnel in that hierarchy.
Among all of the Churches of God, a high view of Scripture is generally held. All claim to derive their doctrines from a correct understanding of Scripture. Yet, all three traditions have major disagreements over important doctrines. For example, The COGSD believes and teaches that Sabbath observance is Scripturally required of Christians, as does the Armstrongian tradition. The Worldwide Church of God now gives its members the option of keeping the Sabbath or Sunday, with Sunday-keeping apparently being the preferred mode.
The COGSD does not see in Scripture a requirement for Christians to keep the annual holy days of Leviticus 23, nor does Worldwide. The Amstrongian churches are now somewhat alone in this belief.
The COGSD teaches against the use of alcoholic beverages, whereas the other two traditions support it.
When it comes to ministerial “ranks” and pecking orders, the three traditions are all over the map. Even within the Armstrongian tradition, there are variations on this theme – some groups being largely autocratic, others being more democratic.
There is disagreement within all three traditions regarding the ordination of women, whether or not black ministers should be given authority over white ministers (Armstrongians only), tithing issues, whether or not the commandments regarding clean and unclean meats must be observed, prophecy (especially the US & BC doctrine), divorce & remarriage, military service, participation in politics, the use of makeup, observance of birthdays, Christmas, Easter and other post-Biblical Christian observances.
We are now seeing an emerging distinction within the three traditions as to the nature of the Godhead. Worldwide is moving in Trinitarian directions, the Armstrongites are maintaining a binitarian view, and others (Westby, Hunting, Buzzard et al) are adopting a “one God” approach. The details of this controversy have been aired in the pages of The Journal and tapes are available from ACD.) Positions are being taken, defended and perhaps frozen.
Within the Churches of God Pod, the whole subject of the interpretation of Bible prophecy is also up for grabs. There is nothing like a consensus on this within the Churches of God tradition. Many, if not most, of the old Armstrongian understandings, once viewed as axiomatic, have fallen by the wayside in some circles.
Why is this happening? Why is everyone reading the same music – the Bible – and ending up playing different tunes?
Within the Churches of God, there is a serious paucity of
scholars properly schooled in exegetical method. Most ministers within the Armstrongian tradition have not been trained in the rules
of interpretation (hermeneutics). They are not able to read the copies of the
Biblical texts in their original languages. Nor are they well educated in the
use of “helps” or sources. At
Most attempts at upgrading the quality of teaching at AC were spiked before they got off the ground – at least they were during the years I served on the faculty and on the College Board. “Outside” people with higher theological degrees were held in suspicion. It was then believed that such people once introduced into the AC system would become a contaminating stream, “watering down the truth” and undermining Mr. Armstrong’s teachings. Part of that fear was undoubtedly well founded: true scholars would have undermined many of HWA’s teachings because they were, and are, founded upon exegetical fallacy. This would not have been denigration however, but rather an upgrading.
By now it should be apparent that three different, but related, church traditions, all holding a high view of Scripture, cannot arrive at a consensus as to the meaning of Scripture when it comes to specific major doctrines.
All three traditions accept the authority of Scripture as the basis for doctrine and dogma. Yet all three can examine the same passages relating to Sabbath observance, tithing, festival observance, prophecy and the use of alcohol, etc. etc. and draw conflicting conclusions from them. Again I ask, why is this?
Part of the reason, undoubtedly, is that different approaches to Scripture prevail in each group. Armstrongians generally approach the Bible in an authoritarian way: Herbert W. Armstrong was “God’s Apostle” for our times, and his understanding was therefore authoritative for Armstrongites -- end of story, end of discussion. To oppose something HWA taught is to “rebel against” or “attack” “God’s apostle.” In this mentality, the highest value is personal loyalty to HWA and fidelity to his teachings. This is a mindset that cannot be reasoned with. In this environment, HWA’s doctrines have reached sacred cow status. There is no room for a truly objective analysis of them. Consequently, within this grouping, Armstrong’s doctrinal errors are continually reinforced, shored up, and perpetuated.
Within the COGSD, tradition has built up a powerful momentum. This denomination is the oldest in the three traditions. In recent years, it has had its own share of internal doctrinal controversies, each generating emotional polarizations and “here I stand” declarations.
The
theology of the neo-Worldwide Church of God is still in flux. As it develops,
an evangelical doctrinal personality becomes increasingly observable. There are
still some loose ends, but the line of theological thought promoted by
The term “Evangelical” is not
conclusively defined. In
What is needed in all three groups is a willingness to approach all doctrine and Scriptural exegesis critically. In this mode, a doctrine or exegetical statement is examined apart from any consideration of the personality who formulated it. To think “critically” does not mean to “tear down” or “denigrate.” It means to think analytically about a subject. It means to evaluate arguments for their own sake. Research professor of New Testament, D.A. Carson, explains it as follows:
“The essence of all critical
thought, in the best sense of that abused expression, is the justification of
opinions. A critical interpretation of Scripture is one that has adequate
justification – lexical, grammatical, cultural, theological, historical,
geographical, or other justification. In other words, critical exegesis in this
sense is exegesis that provides sound reasons for the choices it makes and the
positions it adopts. Critical exegesis is opposed to merely personal opinions,
appeals to blind authority (the interpreter’s or anyone else’s), arbitrary
interpretations, and speculative opinions” (Exegetical Fallacies by D.A.
Carson, Baker, Grand Rapids, Mi. 2nd edition, 1996, p. 16).
Reread the above paragraph – it says a lot. If anyone is going to say, “This is what this passage of Scripture means,” the burden is then upon him to justify his conclusions. Simply quoting Herbert W. Armstrong, or some other denominational leader or hierarchy, is inadequate. To be valid, any exegetical conclusion must be justified. It cannot be arbitrary. If an opinion cannot be properly justified, there is no reason to believe or accept it.
In Scripture, we are dealing with documents written between 3500 and 2000 years ago, in ancient languages, against wholly different cultural and historical backgrounds. It is not possible to understand these documents without the application of competent scholarship. Those who pooh-pooh the need for scholarship are in danger of committing a wide range of profound exegetical errors. As noted above, there is no reason to believe anyone’s interpretation of a passage of Scripture if the person does not provide us with sound reasons for so doing.
“Careful handling of the
Bible will enable us to ‘hear’ it a little better. It is all too easy to read
the traditional interpretations we have received from others into the text of
Scripture. Then we may unwittingly transfer the authority of Scripture to our
traditional interpretations and invest them with a false, even an idolatrous,
degree of certainty. Because traditions are reshaped as they are passed on,
after a while we may drift far from God’s Word while still insisting that all
our theological opinions are ‘biblical’ and therefore true. If when we are in
such a state we study the Bible uncritically, more than likely it will simply
reinforce our errors” (ibid. p. 17).
For the most part, properly educated scholars are the kind of Christians who are best able to apply to Scripture the most rigorous techniques of critical exegetical thinking. Many ministers – especially in our own tradition – are not trained in these techniques. (Mr. Armstrong himself had no formal training in hermeneutics or exegesis. He was largely unfamiliar with hermeneutical rules and techniques. This is not to say that formal training is essential, but one should have at least read some good books on the subject.) Consequently, they tend to approach Scripture in authoritarian, traditional, and largely exegetically unskilled ways. It is not possible to delve into the full meaning of a given text or pericope (see article No. 1 for a discussion of this word) using only an English translation, Strong’s Concordance, and an archaic commentary like Clarke’s or JFB. These tools are simply too limited and limiting. They are certainly inadequate to the task of forming denominational doctrine and dogma.
Over the years, I have been as guilty as anyone of committing exegetical errors on the basis of inadequate education in exegetical technique (proof-texting for example). I am by no means alone. The problem is far more serious than most of us have realized. Even within Evangelical circles, says Carson, “…exegetical fallacies are painfully frequent among us.” (ibid. p. 15). Carson takes to task some of the leading scholars including well-known theologians like Rudolph Bultmann, for their occasional fallacious reasoning about Scripture. A close reading of Carson’s book will reveal that all too many of us have been embarrassingly guilty of exegetical folly over the years. With this knowledge should come at least some humility. It is time to clean up our act and to make the effort educate ourselves in the rules of sound exegesis. Carson’s book can help us get the pump primed.
Our Tradition in Perspective
The neo-Worldwide Church of God, and the
In this country, the two fastest growing Christian groups are the Mormons and the Evangelicals. Many of the more liberal mainstream denominations are experiencing shrinkage. The Episcopal Church, for example, is down to 2,314,756 members. The charismatic Assemblies of God has been one of the faster growing denominations. It now claims some 2,561,000 adherents.
The
city of Los Angeles alone hosts at least 106 different Christian denominations,
while the state of Illinois has 120 different faiths. In the world generally,
there are now some 50,000 Christian denominations totaling some 1 billion
adherents.
It
is interesting to note that in once-Catholic France, there are now more Moslems
than there are baptized Catholics. The number of Moslems in that country now
exceeds 5 million.
About
half of all Americans attend church services on a regular basis. More than 60
percent say they pray at least once a day.
Most
Christians claim to derive their doctrines from the Bible. In the case of the
Catholic Church, the authority of the Magisterium
(Church hierarchy) transcends the Bible. The rationale here is that since the
Church produced the Bible, its leadership has the authority to determine how it
should be used or interpreted. Thus its approach to doctrine is authoritarian
rather than purely objective.
For
the Protestant denominations, the rule is Sola
Scriptura – the Bible alone. Yet interpretations
are all over the map. For any given passage of Scripture, there may be hundreds
of conflicting interpretations. To determine which, if any, is correct, each
must be
examined on its own merits. It would help if we could all agree on some
hermeneutical rules.
In the Christian cults, the meaning of Scripture is typically determined by an individual who claims prophet or apostle status, along with special, updated, revelation direct from God.