A Response to “Pagan Christianity?”
3.12 Chapter 11 Review – Reapproaching the New Testament: The Bible is Not a Jigsaw Puzzle
Chapter 11 of Pagan Christianity? is perhaps the key to the entire book. Here, Viola and Barna lay out their approach to interpreting Scripture (i.e., their hermeneutic), and here we finally find the explanation for the astonishing neglect (at times), and bizarre abuse (at other times), of Scripture evident throughout the book. The chapter begins with the question: why do Christians fail to notice that our practices are “at odds with the New Testament”? Their answer is that we approach the New Testament in the wrong way. And, indeed, I think they are right to identify hermeneutics as the core of the conflict between us and them. But as we shall see, it is they, and not us, who have adopted the wrong hermeneutic.
Viola and Barna first rail against the practice of proof-texting in contemporary Christianity. This is profoundly ironic, given that their own engagement with Scripture throughout the book rarely rises above the very crudest form of proof texting possible! To be clear, I have no doubt that proof-texting is a significant problem in the broader evangelical world. Taking a biblical text in isolation and making it apply to whatever situation you want, regardless of its meaning in its original context, is a recipe for disaster. But Viola and Barna understand “proof-texting” in a much broader way, and under its name, cast aside perfectly sound principles of exegesis as well. They place the blame for proof-texting on the Protestant scholastics, saying:
“The Protestant scholastics held that not only is the Scripture the Word of God, but every part of it is the Word of God in and of itself—irrespective of context. This set the stage for the idea that if we lift a verse out of the Bible, it is true in its own right and can be used to prove a doctrine or a practice.”
This is a very problematic statement, falsely slandering Protestant scholasticism,[1] which produced some of the deepest systematic theological reflection the world has yet seen. Protestant scholasticism would encompass figures such as Francis Turretin and Martin Chemnitz. The Westminster Divines (framers of the Westminster Confession), as well as many of the puritans, are often considered to be connected to this broader movement. The old accusation of proof-texting against these figures does not withstand scrutiny.[2] Indeed, there would be no better cure for contemporary proof-texting in the church than a recovery of the rigorous exegesis of Scripture exemplified by the Protestant scholastics. In reality, the practice of the Protestant scholastics (in principle, if not always in practice) was to allow the totality of Scripture to speak to any question of doctrine. They would first consider the meaning of a passage in context, but then explore all of the logical implications of that meaning (having been contextually determined) for the rest of theology. This is very distinct from mere “proof-texting”, that we would reject. The Westminster Confession says that the “whole counsel of God” concerns not only that which is “expressly set down in Scripture” but also that which “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture”.[3] So, yes, every verse in the Bible is true in its own right! Yes, any truth derived from any place in Scripture is true in and of itself, and not only can but should be applied beyond its immediate context! This principle is, in fact, a repudiation of proof-texting, and serves as the foundation for all systematic theology. But Viola and Barna show no interest in such endeavours. I was initially very puzzled by their refusal, in multiple places in their book, to acknowledge or consider the broader implications of various passages for Christian doctrine and practice. But now I see why. They have decided, without justification, that no passage can have any implications or meaning beyond its immediate, historical context. They reject the use of the necessary consequences of Scriptural teachings. Needless to say, this is irrational to the extreme, and utterly corrosive for Christian orthodoxy.[4]
Moving yet further into hermeneutical catastrophe, Viola and Barna next throw into question the very sufficiency and clarity of Scripture itself. They first tell a story meant to illustrate the nature of the New Testament epistles. A marital counsellor has a long career, writing thousands of letters to troubled couples. A descendant of his then compiles several of his letters into a single volume, but the letters are not dated, and only the counsellor’s side of the correspondence is preserved. With time, the book becomes a widely used classic, and scholars debate its meaning, pulling verses out of context to support their own agendas. The problem, they say, is that “the letters have been lifted out of their historical context” and “have been transformed into a series of isolated, disjointed, fragmented sentences—so anyone can lift one sentence from one letter, another sentence from another letter, and then paste them together to create the marital philosophy of his or her choice.” They conclude their story by saying, “Whether you realize it or not, this is a description of your New Testament!” They say, “reading the letters of Paul is like listening to one end of a phone conversation.” The implication is that Scripture on its own is not enough. They treat the compilation of the New Testament as a mere accident of history, and as a result view it as incomplete, and deficient. The solution, they say, is that we have to rely on scholarship that reconstructs for us what Scripture is missing. They write: “Thanks to recent biblical scholarship, we can now reconstruct the entire saga of the early church. In other words, we can hear the other side of the conversation! Frank’s book The Untold Story of the New Testament Church reconstructs both sides of the conversation, creating one fluid narrative of the early church.” Then they make this horrifying remark: “When we learn the story, our verses must bow and bend to it.” So, there it is. We cannot understand Scripture on its own: the mere “verses” are insufficient, as they are supposedly fragmentary and lack context. We need to learn the history of the early church, as reconstructed by Frank Viola and his favourite “scholars”, and then “bend” the verses of Scripture to fit! While horrifying, this makes perfect sense of how Viola and Barna treat (or better, mistreat) Scripture throughout their book. They cite modern scholars that suit their agenda (many of which not even Christian), far more often than they do Scripture. And when they do mention Scripture, it is rigidly interpreted in light of the claims of those scholars, even when directly contrary to the plain meaning and logical implications of the text.
A Reformed Christian would propose a very different approach to Scripture. Our Bibles, by the inspiration and providential preservation of God, contain “all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life”.[5] If our Lord did not see fit to preserve records of the full set of circumstances surrounding Paul’s epistles (the “other side of the conversation”), it follows that we simply did not need them. The text can be understood on its own terms, even if we lack (by the will and purpose of God) a full understanding of the situations a biblical writer is responding to. I do not deny that knowledge of historical context can be of great help in places (i.e., understanding idioms used, cultural practices mentioned, political situations assumed, etc.), but such historical background must be placed within the larger process of responsible exegesis of Scripture, and cannot become primary. The inerrant, infallible, inspired text must be its own interpreter.[6] It is a deadly error to set up the fallible “reconstructions” of scholars as your overriding standard for biblical interpretation.[7]
Thus, we have found the fountainhead of all the errors propagated in Pagan Christianity. Viola and Barna have a profoundly low view of Scripture. They do not allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. They refuse to derive any deeper doctrinal implications from a passage but restrict its meaning to its immediate context. They start with a “reconstruction” of how they believe the first-century church operated and read all of Scripture in light of that. If instead, we read Scripture as the sufficient and infallible Word of God, as we ought, we will come to rather different conclusions.
[1] For a nice introduction to the concept of Protestant scholasticism, see: Cooper, J. B. (2022). What exactly is Protestant Scholasticism and why does it matter? Credo Magazine. 12(1). https://credomag.com/article/what-exactly-is-protestant-scholasticism-and-why-does-it-matter/
[2] Trueman, C. (2012). The Revised Historiography of Reformed Orthodoxy: A Few Practical Implications. Ordained Servant. https://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=325
[3] The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.6.
[4] See this brief discussion: Rhodes, J. (2023). By Good and Necessary Consequence. Tabletalk. https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/by-good-and-necessary-consequence-2019-06/
[5] Quoted from the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1.6.
[6] This principle is called the analogy of faith. See the following: Sproul, R. C. (2023). Knowing Scripture. Ligonier. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/knowing-scripture; Duke, R. (2016). The Clarity of Scripture and the Analogy of Faith. Founders Journal. https://founders.org/articles/the-clarity-of-scripture-and-the-analogy-of-faith/
[7] One thinks of the “reconstructions” made by scientists of extinct beasts, like dinosaurs. Such reconstructions are always provisional, debated, and frequently updated as more evidence comes to light. Such reconstructions are also highly influenced by the agendas of those doing the reconstruction. The attempt to reconstruct the first-century church would be similarly fraught.
Next Section: 3.13 Chapter 12 Review – A Second Glance at the Saviour: Jesus, the Revolutionary
0 Comments