I’ve tried to become less reactionary in my blogging. I might have made some progress, or perhaps I’ve just been busier and don’t think about it very much. Sometimes there is an article or blog post that comes to my attention that is so annoying that I feel compelled to consider it for blog fodder. This morning I read one of them called 16 Ways Progressive Christians Interpret the Bible. I suppose I am tempted to read too much into his Patheos post, but aware of this and will try my best to interpret his words well.
He is Roger Wolsey, a “progressive” United Methodist pastor. What he does is helpful because he does lay out his assumptions when he interprets the Bible. He doesn’t defend those assumptions, he just assumes they are superior to the assumptions held by “Fundamentalists”. By the way he articulates his argument you’d think there were only “Fundamentalists”, “Atheists” and “Progressives.” I am part of the great unknown (perhaps not to him but at least “Sir Not-Mentioned-in-this-Article”) that would fall under the category of Conservative and Confessional.
“All Christians pick and choose which portions of the Bible (to interpret) literally, progressive Christians simply admit this and share how we discern.”
Not sure I’d agree with that statement. Most people I know admit this and talk about how they discern the difference. Progressives are not superior to anyone in this matter. They don’t have “interpretative righteousness” as a result. I am bringing my men’s study through the book Bible Study that addresses many of these issues and I often verbalize these things as I preach or teach SS (the Revelation series was not an exception). I suggest he doesn’t give those pesky Fundamentalists enough credit. So much for the love (or charity) he talks about later. He seems to always paint them in a most negative light.
He wants us to know that he doesn’t speak for all Progressives, but his methods and presuppositions are in common with most of those with whom he hangs around. So keep this in mind when you talk with a Progressive about how they interpret the Bible.
There are many things he does and assumes that are in step with those pesky Fundies, or at least the Conservative Confessionalists of whom I am a part but for whom I don’t claim to speak. Who can argue with praying, thinking (paying attention to reason), studying how the church of the past & present has looked at the text (reading commentaries and other aspects of “tradition”), focusing on the original languages, studying things in context both in the text and historically.
In some sense, he is “taking the Bible seriously” as he claims, but in some ways he isn’t, and I would think on the basis of his presuppositions shouldn’t!
Though the Scriptures would indicate otherwise (see 2 Timothy 3 though Paul supposedly didn’t write this so it has little authority with him- continue reading!), he believes the Bible was not written by God but by fallible men (does this mean he doesn’t realize we hold to dual authorship?) and is therefore fallible and contains errors (as well as contradictions and inconsistencies). His article is intended to be short, so he doesn’t give any examples of these. He also mentions that the Bible contains ” instances of horrible theology that appear here and there within the texts (e.g., passages that posit God as wrathful, vindictive, and condoning of slavery, and even “ordering” rape and genocide, etc.)”
What he doesn’t admit is that this is not a presupposition simply about the Bible, but rather God. He is refusing to allow God to speak for himself but establishes a “god of his own understanding.” He is not submitting to Scripture, but standing above Scripture to decide not what it says but if what it says is true. What is unfortunate is that he fails to read those passages within their context with regard to the text and history as he claims. God does have a righteous wrath. He wouldn’t be loving if He didn’t! Love responds to sin, which seeks to destroy the object of one’s love, with anger. I guess God should just sit by while evil atrocities occur, and perhaps so should we. God, who is love, apparently only weeps over genocide but isn’t angry and doesn’t hold those guilty accountable is beneath him. (I don’t know where the Bible orders rape, btw. I suspect he is confusing descriptive with prescriptive texts which is another interpretive mistake).
The most common examples of “genocide” that Progressives want to cut out of the Bible are, as Meredith Kline argues, intrusions of the eschaton or judgment. For instance, Abraham was told that he could not inherit the land because the sin of the Canaanites was not full. In Joshua’s time their sin was full. So, if we read the passage in context we see God’s patience despite the numerous sins of the Canaanites. The solution to many of his proposed inconsistencies and contradictions are also found there in the context as well as recognizing figures of speech and customs (like rounding off numbers).
He says he uses the principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture. Good, so do I. In fact, my confession of faith- the Westminster Confession of Faith– teaches us this as the analogy of faith. The point is that the unclear text is interpreted in light of the clear texts. His example of the “sin of Sodom” is typically frustrating. Ezekiel 16, for instance, does not trump what we see in Genesis regarding the sin of Sodom (they wanted to rape men!!!) but adds to our knowledge of their sin (he also conveniently ignores Jude 7 which speaks of their sexual immorality and perversity as reasons for God’s judgment). They were judged severely (or unrighteously in his eyes?) for the sin of homosexuality, as well as their pride, disregard for the poor etc. So, we use one passage of Scripture to help us understand other passages of Scripture, not to completely ignore (and fail to interpret) the other passages.
“We employ a hermeneutic of compassion, love, and justice. (Which Jesus utilized).”
Once again, we see no examples of this. He assumes it, and doesn’t prove it. On the other hand, I employ a Christ-centered hermeneutic since we actually see Jesus teaching the disciples on the way to Emmaus that all the Scripture is about him. Yes, God is love and the law hangs on love. But love isn’t our hermeneutic. God is just, and calls us to be just (this means the law is a standard for conduct and not just some bad thing Fundamentalists talk about). God is compassionate, and calls us to be. These aren’t a hermeneutic though. The Scriptures actually teach us what love, justice and compassion are. We don’t assume what they are and use them to interpret the Bible.
He also sees a “canon within a canon” as many Fundamentalists who are Dispensationalists would. But if we believe 2 Timothy 3:13ff to be the Word of God, which he doesn’t, we see that ALL Scripture is God-breathed and useful, not just the parts that agree with our religious, social or political agendas. He thinks the pastoral epistles, which include 2 Timothy, were not written by Paul. This is a presupposition, and one I would disagree with since the “evidence” is pretty shoddy. Apparently , in his mind, there were people running around pretending to be Paul- the guy who was tossed in prison, beaten repeatedly and eventually beheaded- and writing letters to fool the church into accepting … I’m not sure what exactly. These letters are wholly consistent with what we know of Paul’s teaching so this seems to be a big reach that is unsupported by meaningful evidence (a different vocabulary is to be expected based on topic and audience). I, unlike many Progressives, am a Bible Christian instead of someone who reduces the authority of the Scriptures down to where my version of Christianity is socially tolerable and in keeping with the latest moral trends (social justice and the homosexual agenda).
We follow Jesus’ example in being willing to reject certain passages & theologies in the Bible and to affirm other ones. (He did it a lot)
Really? I don’t think so. He did give a fuller meaning to some passages & theologies, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount but I haven’t seen examples of Him rejecting anything except the Pharisees’ misinterpretations of the Scripture. Those two are not equivalent. If I disagree with Wolsey I’m not rejecting Scripture, just his interpretation and his theology. That is all Jesus was doing, rejecting bad interpretations of the Scriptures.
“p.s. Employing this approach leaves me with no question in my mind that homosexuality between consenting adults in a committed, monogamous relationship is not sinful.”
Thank you, Roger, for your honesty about your own positions and presuppositions. I do have a question though. In light of your presuppositions, including that the Bible it is not the Word of God, why do you believe any of it enough to base your morals, standards and practices upon it? Why would you then use it to evaluate (and judge) the views of others with whom you disagree? It seems like an odd thing to do in light of your presuppositions. After all, there is no one way to interpret the Bible, so how do you know my way and my conclusions aren’t right and true? Or are they just right and true for me? If so, why complain and criticize? It seems to me that you are just wanting some level of acceptance from those you look down upon. Again, very odd.
10 Who among you fears the Lord
and obeys the voice of his servant?
Let him who walks in darkness
and has no light
trust in the name of the Lord
and rely on his God.
11 Behold, all you who kindle a fire,
who equip yourselves with burning torches!
Walk by the light of your fire,
and by the torches that you have kindled!
This you have from my hand:
you shall lie down in torment. Isaiah 50
Cavman Considers 
Leave a Reply