Theological Interpretation Part 3

(1) TIS is a reactionary movement

To understand TIS it is important to recognise that it is, at least in part, a reactionary movement. TIS practitioners express disillusionment with the longstanding dominance of historical criticism as well as the more recent prevalence of ideological criticism in the academy.¹ Neither of these options are seen as accommodating of theological readings of Scripture that presuppose a relatively conservative-confessional view of the Bible. The emphasis placed on discovering 'what actually happened' behind the biblical texts, and interpreting everything in terms of naturalistic human phenomena that is typical of historical-critical approaches has led to a situation where attempting to read the Bible as the word of God is seen as leaping from the realm of reason to the opposing realm of grace.² At the other end of the spectrum, the rise of ideological or advocacy criticism is seen to have resulted in the relativising of all interpretations. According to Kevin Vanhoozer, such an approach emphasizes the location of the reader, and typically denies that one can escape the interpretative constraints of their own context, be it history, culture, class or gender. In a very oversimplified sense, the goal of interpreting Scripture is to discover its meaning for the interpretative community. On this view, the plurality of possible interpretations are not adjudicated by any independent or absolute standards for determining which are acceptable, right or even true. Consequently, even historical-critical approaches are seen as merely one ideologically informed perspective amongst the many.³ The result of this is that the chasm between biblical studies (conceived in historical-critical terms) and theology has been widened.

In response, theological interpreters seek to bring biblical studies and theology into closer dialogue and mutual inter-dependence, whilst avoiding the excesses of both historical-critical and ideological approaches to the Bible. At the same time, TIS aims to place biblical interpretation back in the hands of the Church and away from the naturalistic impulse of the academic realm. At this stage, however, the influence of TIS seems to have been limited almost entirely to the academy.⁴

As with any trends that emerge in response to problems, theological interpreters run two risks. Firstly, some TIS authors are more cogent when highlighting the weaknesses of the positions they oppose – usually historical-criticism – than when advancing a positive description of TIS.⁵ Secondly, reactionary movements tend to involve some degree of caricaturing their opposition. The extent to which TIS practitioners do this, especially with regard to historical-critical approaches will be assessed in the second part of this study. At least in principle, however, TIS does not reject the practising of historical, literary, grammatical or sociological methods. They will all to varying degrees be appropriated by different theological interpreters, but as Christopher Spinks observes, with theology as the principle interest, these other practices take on 'a cooperative, pragmatic or secondary role.'⁶ In this respect, TIS need not be seen as a replacement for other interpretative postures, but as something additive, or as a reordering of existing methods under a new framework. If theological interpreters are to convince others of the merits of their trajectory, their handling of historical and ideological criticism needs to be accurate and fair, and they must be committed to a careful appropriation of any benefits that such views offer.

1Robert L. Plummer, 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2010), 314.

2Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Introduction: What is Theological Interpretation of the Bible?” in Dictionary for the

Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, 20 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005).

3Ibid., 21.

4Charlie Trimm, “Evangelicals, Theology, and Biblical Interpretation: Reflections on the Theological Interpretation

of Scripture,” Bulletin For Biblical Research 20, no. 3 (2010): 312.

5This is of course a subjective point based on this writer's reading of the literature. An example of this problem is

Stephen E. Fowl. Theological Interpretation of Scripture: A Short Introduction (London: Paternoster, 2010).

6D. Christopher Spinks, The Bible and the Crisis of Meaning: Debates on the Theological Interpretation of Scripture

(London: T&T Clark, 2007), 6.