A Low View?
One of the most common criticisms of progressive Christians (or liberals) is that they hold a low view of scripture; that is, they do not subscribe to a "plain reading" of the Bible. Those who hold a "high view" of scripture are of the belief that the words on the pages are the directly inspired word of God, and as such require relatively little in the way of interpretation, whereas those (such as myself) with a "low" view would say that the bible is a collection of accounts of people trying to communicate their own experience of God, and as such, we need to look at the context of the author in far greater detail in order to gain understanding. To give a fairly innocuous example, lets look at 1 Corinthians 11 v4-6:
"Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head-it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off, but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. "(NIV)
 |
| Jay-Z Covers his head in order to prophesy |
A Christian who takes an extremely high view of scripture would take these verses and argue that God clearly demands we cover our heads in a church context. Those who take a lower view of scripture would argue that the apostle Paul is writing to a specific church, in a specific culture (where it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off), and as such we do not need to follow this particular piece of advice.
Complications
The reality is, that very few people within Christianity would argue for the use of head coverings, and that the example above is a vast over-simplification of the issue. If we broaden the passage to look at verse 3 we see things start to get complicated very quickly.
"But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (NIV)
Now this verse becomes a much more divisive issue, around gender equality. If we take a high view of scripture, the verse tells us about gender roles within Christianity (which will lead to some form of complementarianism), whereas with a lower view of scripture, we can analyze the cultural discrimination of women and factor this into our reading (almost certainly leading to a view of gender equal theology).
 |
| It's fair to say Paul did not love feminism |
As we can see, even from this one small passage, the way in which we interpret scripture can have a huge effect on our beliefs. If we were to expand upon this, we would see that a huge number of divisive issues in the modern church come down to how 'low' or 'high' our reading of scripture is (eg. gender equality, LGBTQ rights, poverty, and even the big theological issues like atonement theory or the incarnation).
Misnomer: The Low
The issue with talking about "low" and "high" readings is in the name; "low" sounds worse than "high". Something tells me the person who came up with the names did not consider themselves to have a low reading of scripture. But is it worse? Obviously I'm not going to say (the title of this blog is the give-away). I would argue any historical text needs to be read in the light of its historical context, and the bible is no different in this regard. In fact, nearly every Christian ends up with elements of both high and low, and that's where the key lies. I believe that the Bible is a book inspired by God, in which He reveals himself, but I equally believe that if we're not reading it as a historical book, and examining the context in which it was written in, and for, we are barely reading it at all.
Further reading:
http://www.oasisuk.org/uploaded_docs/Restoring% 20Confidence% 20in% 20the% 20Bible.pdf (This is Steve Chalke on 'Restoring confidence in the Bible,' while I wouldn't agree with everything said here, most of the key points are the same)
http://vimeo.com/86521708 (not reading at all, this is a video summarising the above link, and is a bit easier going)
http / / theresurgence.com/2013/08/08/7-key-principles-for-interpreting-the-bible (For an alternate view, and from someone with a 'high' view of scripture, but also so you can see that even the poster boy of evangelicalism rates context as the second most important principle for interpreting the bible) (note: please do not think I endorse ANYTHING on this website, given purely for the sake of balance.)
If you want to buy something more substantial than the above links, but without getting stupidly in depth, your best bet is probably "How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth" by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, this also takes a higher view than I do, but gives a fair introduction to the idea of exegesis (or interpretation).
Misnomer: The Low
The issue with talking about "low" and "high" readings is in the name; "low" sounds worse than "high". Something tells me the person who came up with the names did not consider themselves to have a low reading of scripture. But is it worse? Obviously I'm not going to say (the title of this blog is the give-away). I would argue any historical text needs to be read in the light of its historical context, and the bible is no different in this regard. In fact, nearly every Christian ends up with elements of both high and low, and that's where the key lies. I believe that the Bible is a book inspired by God, in which He reveals himself, but I equally believe that if we're not reading it as a historical book, and examining the context in which it was written in, and for, we are barely reading it at all.
Further reading:
http://www.oasisuk.org/uploaded_docs/Restoring% 20Confidence% 20in% 20the% 20Bible.pdf (This is Steve Chalke on 'Restoring confidence in the Bible,' while I wouldn't agree with everything said here, most of the key points are the same)
http://vimeo.com/86521708 (not reading at all, this is a video summarising the above link, and is a bit easier going)
http / / theresurgence.com/2013/08/08/7-key-principles-for-interpreting-the-bible (For an alternate view, and from someone with a 'high' view of scripture, but also so you can see that even the poster boy of evangelicalism rates context as the second most important principle for interpreting the bible) (note: please do not think I endorse ANYTHING on this website, given purely for the sake of balance.)
If you want to buy something more substantial than the above links, but without getting stupidly in depth, your best bet is probably "How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth" by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, this also takes a higher view than I do, but gives a fair introduction to the idea of exegesis (or interpretation).
"I believe that the Bible is a book inspired by God, in which He reveals himself" by adding this at the end it proves you don't actually have a 'low view' of scripture. A truly low view would deny any kind of inspiration of that the bible has any significant value in understanding God. The 'high' view you've put forward is basically fundamentalism whereby any kind of scholarship is negated. This is a minority view, the vast majority of christians believe in the importance of good interpretation when it comes to the bible. I think you would get a hearty amen from a large number of people to this post who you would consider to have a 'high' view of scripture.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the issue you are seeking to address is when this becomes one of the insults used by the more conservative crowd, to try and discredit more progressives conclusions. Claiming Rob Bell, Steve Chalke etc are no longer evangelicals because they don't agree with the conservative interpretation and must have a 'low view' of scripture. Many of these people however will emphasis that they do have a high view of scipture and take it very seriously, and it is through serious study that they have come to their non traditional conclusions.
I think everything you've said on the issue is spot on, but It feels to me like you guys really aren't as 'liberal' or 'low' as you'd like to think but actually represent a significant chunk of middle of the line evangelicalism.
Thanks for your thoughts Simon.
DeleteThe point (or part of the point, at least) I was trying to make was that often views are dismissed as low, despite them not being that low, as you've said a truly low view would deny divine inspiration. Because of this I have caricatured a 'high view' in the way I feel people caricature a 'low view' in order to make the point, that really, the vast majority approach scripture in pretty much the same way (Hence the Driscoll link in the further reading section, where his emphasis is pretty similar to Chalke's, despite many seeing them as fairly polar).
In response to us not being that 'liberal' or 'low', I think it varies person to person, but for me, I tend to the left in comparison to most in evangelicalism, and would not consider myself an evangelical, I actually didn't have the line you quoted in my original draft, and nearly changed it to "in which he is revealed". Don't know if that makes much difference, but maybe it does. I guess after a few more posts the Liberal views might come out a bit more...
Pete
thanks for your reply,
DeleteI guess it depends what your contrasting yourself with I know many dislike the conservative, reformed branch of modern evangelicalism, figures such as Driscoll, MacArthur and others aren't popular with a large numbers of our generation. The complication comes when they try to have a monopoly on evangelicalism claiming those who disagree with them can't be evangelicals. And hence any who deny 5 point calvinism, a complimentarian view of gender roles or penal substitution get classed as liberals at best and 'unsaved' at worse.
At the end of the day it all comes back to semantics! 'Evangelical' is a word with many different definitions and understanding as is 'progressive' or 'liberal' we all use these words in different ways which complicates things. But hey if at the end of the day you guys are writing good stuff it shouldn't matter what label you use to describe yourselves. Those who stay clear because of the L word are the ones missing out.
Yep, I tend towards thinking most labels are pretty unhelpful. Hopefully not many will avoid us due to the L word- I definitely gravitate more to blogs I disagree with!
Delete