Robert Jenson and 5 perspectival points on reading Scripture

In his essay ‘Scripture’s Authority in the Church’ in The Art of Reading Scripture (ed. Ellen Davis & Richard Hays; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 27-37, theologian Robert Jenson offers 5 perspectival points for reading Scripture. I shall try to summarise them:

1) The church needs to remember that our attitude and approach to the Bible will be very different from that of the world. It is only the church that gathers together to hear what is said in the Bible and submit herself under its authority. Jenson states, “What Christians call the Bible, or Scripture, exists as a single entity because – and only because – the church gathered these documents for her specific purpose: to aid in preserving her peculiar message, to aid in maintaining across time, from the apostles to the End, the self-identity of her message that the God of Israel has raised his servant Jesus from the dead.” (p.27) Therefore, the church needs to be blatant and unabashed in reading Scripture for the church’s purpose and within the context of Christian faith and practice - a reading guided by church doctrine (p.28)

2) We need to recognise the narrative unity that is present in the Bible. The gospel is a message about an event – the death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus – and so itself has the form of a narrative. In another words, what is present in Scripture as a unified whole is narrative unity, and the church should read Scripture recognising ‘the single plotted succession of events, stretching from creation to consummation, plotted around exodus and resurrection’ (p.29). This means that ‘in the church any passage of Scripture is to be read for its contribution to the telling of Scripture’s whole story’ (p.29).

3) Not only is there a narrative in Scripture, it is an over-arching narrative. “Scripture’s story is not a part of some larger narrative; it is itself the larger narrative of which all other true narratives are parts.” (p.34). As Jenson highlights, this means that ‘not only is Scripture within the church, but we, the church, are within Scripture – that is, our common life is located inside the story Scripture tells.” (p.30). This in turn means that certain ways of construing scriptural authority is not right. We must not think of Scripture as an information base for some entity outside the story – be it God or classical religious experiences or theological history of Israel or the primal church – since we are living in that story, there is no position from which such a ‘third-party outside view’ can be conducted. This also means that we must not think that before we can apply the Scripture passage to us, we first have to grasp it insofar as it is not about ourselves. While a proposition of Paul or the story of Samson happens in its community, we stand on the same line of continuity as the common community of interpretation. Positively, Jenson advocates a playwright analogy of understanding Scriptural authority. He suggests: “Scripture is authoritative for us, as characters in the story that it tells, somewhat as the existing transcript of an unfinished play is determinative of what can be true and right for its characters in the part that remains to be written.” (p.32). Sounds Vanhoozer-ish at this point? But there are differences. Jenson suggests that the third act is not written, but ‘when he does, he will do it as the same author who wrote the first two’ (p.32). I believe Vanhoozer would not agree with this or he would put it in a different way – the Script is complete, the final act is penned down and the whole drama is awaiting its final end and conclusion, though the performance is still going on and heading towards that direction. But both Jenson and Vanhoozer agree on this – The grand story told in Scripture is not only the story of the characters created by the author but is also the story of the author as a character in his own play. The story is also fundamentally God’s story. The end state of this hermeneutical perspective – “Scripture is not a set of clues from which to figure out God, for the story it tells is itself the truth of God.” (p.33)


4) Since we now live the story Scripture tells, Scripture does not merely inform us, but when we read Scripture in the church, Scripture addresses us. And the voice that addresses us is the Word of God, the Logos, the second identity of the Trinity. Jenson goes on to suggest, rather interestingly, therefore that the voice that speaks in the Old Testament is that of the pre-existent Christ, just as the New Testament is the voice of his continuing prophetic activity. Jenson gives the example of Isaiah – when the prophet describes the servant as a “man of sorrows and acquainted with grief”, it is really Christ’s own testimony to his own character, given by the mouth of his prophet. Hence, we should not be afraid to ‘find Jesus in the Old Testament’. I have to admit this is a somewhat controversial point, but one that is definitely food for thought.

5) In the light of all this, the best way to experience the authority of Scripture is to see how Scripture is privileged in the life of the church – privileged in such a way as to fundamentally shape its life. As Jenson wittily says, “To experience the authority of Scripture, this is the chief thing to do: Hang out with Scripture, on a particular corner, the corner where there is a little crowd gathered around someone telling about the resurrection.” (p.36)

The necessary circularity of a theological account of Scripture

Here's Westmont College professor of religious studies Telford Work on why a theological account of the Doctrine of Scripture will necessarily be circular:

"Protestant systematic theology has traditionally placed the topics of revelation and Scripture first in its order of reflection. This arrangement has much to commend it. It solidly grounds the rest of systematic theology, and stresses the sheer divine initiative in any human knowledge and love of God. But it tends to leave the character and work of Scripture behind, undeveloped, as the theology moves on. By contrast, an economic Trinitarian theology of Scripture continually revisits bibliology in light of every other locus of theology. A systematic, Trinitarian doctrine of Scripture is necessarily circular: all the categories that decribe it also emerge from it. This circularity liberates the doctrine of Scripture from its prolegomenal ghetto and appreciates the Bible as reaching into the very plan of God and the very heart of the Christian life. Every further uncovering of the mystery of God's economy of salvation - Christology, Trinity, soteriology, eschatology, ecclesiology - is a new warrant and occasion to make another hermeneutical circuit, and develop a fuller account of Scripture, with which the Church can evaluate and shape its biblical practices."

(Telford Work, Living and Active: Scripture in the Economy of Salvation, 9)

Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology

I know the very title of this post might discomfort some: “What do you mean by ‘moving beyond’ the Bible? Are we supposed to ever move beyond the Bible?” But this is really the title of a book I’ve just finished reading – Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology (ed. Gary Meadors; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009). In this book, a power packed cast of writers provide their different understandings of how they move from the Bible to theology or how they take the words or message of the Bible and apply it to modern day contexts and situations which the writers of Scripture never had to contend with - the most popular situations as presented in the book being the issue of abolition of slaves, women teaching, and (as presented by one contributor) transsexuality.


The first contributor is Walter Kaiser with the Principalising model, where Kasier states that we in fact don’t have to move beyond Scripture in the sense of taking the words of Scripture off on some trajectory to enable it to meet our present day contexts and situations. Rather, Scripture itself already has to full capacity to address these issues. What is needed, rather is to move through what he calls the ‘Ladder of Abstraction’ to sieve out and state ‘the general principle that embodies what is seen in the specificity, culture, and times of the text’ and then to ‘apply (that principle) to our day in corresponding specifics that elaborate on the same general principle’ (p.50). In a somewhat convoluted essay, the second contributor Daniel M. Doriani presents his Redemptive-Historical model, which seems like the standard grammatical-historical method, except that a much greater weight and attention is given to the location of the passage within salvation history. In another words, it is biblical theology resulting in a stronger Christocentric focus. So far so good, except that at this point Doriani introduces other factors such as allowing narrative to have its say in directing us in theology and ethics (p.87); casuistry (p.100), and asking ‘questions the Bible endorses’ (p.102), which really serve to confuse rather than illuminate his presentation. Third up is Kevin Vanhoozer, who presents his (curtains up and to no surprise) Drama of Redemption model. In this model, Christian living is seen as a fitting participation in God’s Theodrama, which He has graciously invited us to be part of. The Bible, in this case, serves as the script for a fitting participation, but yet a fitting participation is not just merely performing out the Script as it is, but rather it requires improvisation – which involves knowing how a portion of the Script fits in with the wider whole (what Vanhoozer calls ‘canon sense’: “To read with canon sense [...] is to read figurally or typologically, which is to say with the conviction that there is an underlying theodramatic consistency and coherence that underlies and unifies the whole.” (p.180)); and to see and learn from the previous performances of other saints and to understand the context ones is in (what Vanhoozer calls ‘catholic sensibility’ p.181). In another words, a faithful performance is when one performs or inhabits not so much the ‘world behind the text’ or even ‘the world of the text’, but rather ‘the world in front of the text’ or ‘the world implied by the text’. In another words, a fitting performance is when one cultivates theodramatic vision – when we ‘move beyond the script and become faithful performances of the world it implies by cultivating minds nurtured on the canon’, when our minds, hearts and imagination are trained and disciplined to think, desire, see – and then do – reality as it is in Jesus Christ’ (p.170). It is hence not surprising that doctrine, for Vanhoozer is largely formative – to so shape our thinking and imagination that we become people who habitually make good theodramtic judgements as to who God is, what He is doing, and hence what we must do in response (p.178). The final contributor is William Webb, who presents his Redemptive-Movement model, which is mainly concerned to find the ‘trajectory or logical extension of the Bible’s (or passage’s) redemptive spirit that carries Christians to an ultimate ethic’ (p.217). Due to this model’s frequent association with other more ‘out there’ hermeneutical theories which involve launching the meaning of the passage off on a trajectory which often ends up where the reader’s whims and fancies lead them to, Webb has to spend a proportionate time responding to the misconceptions and defending his model. Webb does not deny the NT as final and definitive revelation, but ‘understanding the NT as final and definitive revelation does not automatically mean that the NT contains the final realisation of social ethics in all of its concrete particulars’ (p.246). In another words, I think it is the ethical application of the passage that Webb allows for a trajectory to an ‘ultimate ethic’, one which may or may not be seen within the pages of the Bible itself. What makes this book worth it’s price is an additional three reflections from Mark Strauss, Al Wolters (who provides an interesting argument for general revelation which together with special revelation helps us to move ‘beyond the bible’ in these contentious issues p.317-19), and Chris Wright (who suggests that a further perspective that needs to be taken into account is that of a missional hermeneutics – since Scripture is about mission or since Scripture is to be read with a missional hermeneutic, then the direction and paradigm in which we go beyond Scripture in thinking through issues must also have a missional direction).

I conclude with three comments. Firstly, it is comforting and encouraging to know that all four writers are thoroughly convinced of the nature and authority of Scripture. While they may be convicted to varying degrees over the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture , all four writers recognise the need to submit oneself to the Word of God. Perhaps the deeper question discussed here is not Is Scripture authoritative but rather How is Scripture authoritative? Secondly, the answer to the How question varies, but each polarity is not without its own difficulties. For example, Kaiser’s principlising model states that there is no need to move beyond Scripture – Scripture contains (timeless?) principles that are more than sufficient to answer any situation in any context (he shows this by considering women leadership, euthanasia, abortion, stem cell research, slave abolition etc.), but the deeper question that remains (as pointed out by the other contributors) is whose principles? i.e. what is there to guide me to ensure that I draw out the right principle, or what is there to prevent two people from drawing out contrary principles? Kaiser would answer, “Solid exegesis!”, but the exegesis of certain passages can be tricky at times and not as simplistic as Kaiser makes it out to be (for e.g. his exegesis of 1 Tim 2:12 to justify his egalitarian position). As David Clark (To know and love God) puts it, “principlizing obscures the fact that any articulation of the allegedly transcultural principles still reflects the culture of the translators.” There is no such thing as propositions free from cultural bias or worldview (p.276). On the other polarity, someone like Webb faces the same criticism. How do we determine the ‘ultimate ethic’ of the text? Webb would answer, “By the redemptive spirit of the text!”, but whose spirit? Isn’t it of the reader at the end of the day? Or the Holy Spirit? Either way, Webb (as Strauss points out) runs the risk of being unable to provide a definite answer by labelling “meaning” as ‘something not part of the human author’s communicative intent as expressed through speech-acts (p.290). Even Vanhoozer cannot escape this difficulty. What is the measure by which we use to define faithful performance? What is the measure of faithful improvisation? (Questions asked by Wolters p.316) Though I think Vanhoozer provides us a hint of his answer in his essay - It is the rule of love, the way of wisdom. A faithful performance, a fitting improvisation is one which corresponds to the dramatis personae himself – God as revealed in Jesus – full of love, full of wisdom. As Vanhoozer himself states, “The way forward is the way of wisdom – to walk in such a manner that one corresponds in one’s whole being-in-act to God’s prior-in-act. The wise disciple is the one who discerns, deliberates, and does the truth, goodness, and beauty that is the love of God in Jesus Christ.” (p.186). My third and final comment is this book is really a mistitle. I was expecting to learn how one can move beyond the Bible to Theology, thinking doctrine and systematic theology. But that does not seem to be the main emphasis here. Instead, a more accurate title should be ‘Moving Beyond the Bible to Ethics’.