Marx, meet Augustine
November 24, 2005
Kevin Gonzaga
Whenever we read the Bible, we choose to use a specific method of interpretation; consciously or unconsciously we make a choice as to how we are going to find meaning from the letters on the page.
In scholarly circles, various methods are competing to be seen as the way to interpret scripture, or least one of many legitimate ways. Whatever method we choose, be it passively or critically, that method directly affects how we interpret scripture. All methods of interpretation contain presuppositions about the world and these presuppositions find their way into the result. This is why everyone who reads the Bible needs to be very concerned with what method they choose; no one who believes the Bible contains truth should let this decision go unexamined. As a Biblical Studies major, I’m confronted with this question daily. In an effort to help others think about this question and possibly even make a decision themselves, this is what I’ve found when I tried to answer this question.
The Enlightenment suggested that the project of reason would provide us with objective truth. It was out of this belief that the historical-critical method was born. It is important to mention that this has been the reigning champ in scholarly circles. It is the method that I’ve been trained in by teachers who are not comfortable fully endorsing it. In this method we investigate the text’s history through various literary and historical
tools with complete objectivity in the interpretive process.
However, there are major holes in this method. The belief that an interpreter could work without their beliefs being involved is the first problem.
It has been observed, even by supporters of this method, that a reader divorcing their presuppositions (read: worldview) from their work is impossible. Some have suggested that acknowledging one’s presuppositions beforehand would at least alert readers to their particular slant.
Rudolf Bultmann, a biblical scholar, suggested that varying ideologies (Feminism, Marxism, Evangelicalism, etc.) should provide different readings of scripture. Truth, according to Bultmann, is a synthesis of their works under the watchful eye of the historical-critical method’s tools and guidelines. But what happens if a feminist and a capitalist totally disagree on the meaning of a passage? Is a Marxist’s slant on the whole Bible legitimate? There are many problems when a plurality of worldviews compete for legitimacy.
It seems the Enlightenment was misguided in putting its faith in reason to produce objective truth. Our attempts to remain unbiased only highlight our inability to do so. Even if I could turn off my worldview, isn’t it problematic to try and approach the Bible, which I believe to be the revealed word of God, after setting my faith aside? As a Christian, shouldn’t I put my faith in the Holy Spirit to guide my reading? The Church fathers used a method of interpretation called Patristic or Allegorical exegesis. It was quite simple: while trusting the Holy Spirit to guide their reading, the Church fathers interpreted the text. However, while some Church fathers did go about a more scholarly process, the method appears highly personalized and the results of this kind of interpretation are rather wide ranging. For example, one Church father suggested there are only four Gospels because there are four corners of the earth and four directions in which the wind blows. While this method puts great emphasis on the Holy Spirit’s role in interpretation, this method can be easily abused and the Bible can be made to support just about any personal doctrine or hobbyhorse interpretation. This is why I feel uncomfortable supporting doctrine based on this method alone.
Sometimes it appears that we are left with a choice: being respected academically or staying true to orthodox beliefs. The lack of a method that balances to the two appropriately seems to support this belief. It was in the midst of my search for this type of method that I read St. Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine. In this book, Saint Augustine suggests that the way to interpret the Bible and teach what is learned needs to be guided by the Rule of Faith and the Rule of Conduct.
The Rule of Faith is comprised of the core beliefs of Christianity (the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds contain them) that helped guide the church while the Bible was being formed. The Rule of Conduct is the commandment to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. According to Augustine, the reader should then approach the text with Faith and Love. If my interpretation falls outside of the Rule of Faith (if I, for example, found a fourth person in the Trinity) I need to look at the passage again. All the time I’m interpreting and teaching what I interpret, I need to be guided by my love for God and concern for the wellbeing of others. If my text doesn’t increase this double love I need to look at the passage again. While this method allows me to use tools from the historical-critical method, I do not play by that method’s rules of objectivity.
So for now I’m following Augustine’s method. I use tools from the historical-critical method but don’t play by that method’s rules, especially concerning objectivity. I’m interpreting the passage for others from a standpoint of faith. I desire the Holy Spirit to guide my interpretation but check to make sure my interpretation is orthodox. But in all of this I’m still stuck wondering if, in fact, I’ve made the right choice. Is this the balanced method that couples academic study with my faith correctly? Is a balance what I really need, or do I need to make a choice?
Now you go...
Got something to say?