 |
|
|
|||||||
|
Henry vs. Frei (Introduction)As a (post)evangelical, I have a high view of the authority of Scripture. I am also engaged in the Emergent conversation, so the issue of biblical authority comes up quite frequently in conversations with disavowed or disgruntled evangelicals who wish to obviate theological fascism, while maintaining the sufficiency of Scripture. A while back, Mark provided a helpful discussion on our presiding model of the Gospel, in which he asks about our sources for theological contruction in the Emergent church.Evangelical Christianity for the last half-century has looked to the theology of Carl F. H. Henry as an ally in constructing an evangelical view of Scripture. (Henry was the principle author of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy). My contention is that Henry is so thoroughly wedded to the spirit of modernity that this commitment actually supplants the authority of Scripture. Henry's approach, in my mind, forces evangelical Christians into a quagmire of proof-texting and quibbling over modernist categories of “Truth,” “Fact,” and “Objectivity.” So, who might (post)evangelicals turn to if Henry is not longer our ally? I suggest we look to the theological proposals offered by Hans Frei. Continue reading... Following a close reading of Henry’s work on biblical inerrancy, sensus literalis and scriptural authority, it is clear that Henry’s understanding of the referentiality of the text forces him to make theological moves (inerrancy) that run contrary to a more thoroughly evangelical modus operandi. Frei's postliberal theology offers a proposed schema by which evangelical theology can progress apart from Henry’s dogmatically defended insistence on meaning-as-reference. The central problem I have with Henry's theology is that he subordinates the authority of Scripture to modernity. Whereas Frei allows the Text to speak for itself--on its own authority--Henry submits its authority to historical-criticism, philosophical propositions and reason. Although many evangelicals, like Henry, claim to have a high-view of the Bible's literal sense, they actually have a high-view of the evangelical presiding model of biblical interpretation. For instance, Barr notes, [F]undamentalist interpretation does not take the Bible literally, but varies between taking it literally and nonliterally. This variation is made necessary by the real guiding principle of fundamentalist interpretation, namely that one must ensure that the Bible is inerrant, without error. Inerrancy is maintained only by constantly altering the mode of interpretation, and in particular by abandoning the literal sense as soon as it would be an embarrassment to the view of inerrancy held. (Fundamentalism, 46)Although on the surface it appears that evangelicals attribute the highest esteem to the Bible's authority, under deeper scrutiny it becomes apparent that many evangelicals are more committed to defending their presiding model of interpretation than the Bible itself. The Yale theologian, Hans Frei, provides (post)evangelicals with a way out of this modernist vortex and enables us to retrieve a higher view of Scripture than that attested by Henry without all of the problems endemic to modernist categories of truth. In an unpublished manuscript, Frei notes, Here as far as I could see we have in the form of a realistic story the rendering of our salvation – in the form of a realistic story which of course claims to be true. In that in the form of a story that claims to be true we have the rendering of our salvation; but if it is not true that is still what it means, and for me the problem of the meaning on the one hand and the truth on the other hand were quite distinct. Even if I could not believe in its truth I wanted at least to be able to say I know the meaning of that which I cannot believe. I do believe it, but in the end I would still say, regardless, ‘This is its meaning.’ I did not want, in order to be able to believe it, to reshape its meaning in such a way that it would render a truth that is acceptable to me. That seemed to me to be playing dirty pool. And I did not for a moment think that in order to do this, in order to maintain what I hope would be some integrity in scriptural reading, that I had to turn fundamentalist; it did not seem to me for a moment that that was the case.Frei obviates the modernist quibblings over Truth and Fact that have occupied so much of evangelical Christianity in the last 100 years by leading us past the picayune debates to the Text itself. That, in my opinion, is a breath of fresh air for many (post)evangelicals. BTW: This is the first of a series of posts on Frei and Henry. (So if you did not understand what I wrote above don't worry, I will explain in more fully in later posts). Peace. posted by Jake at 5/11/2005 10:41:00 AM  
1 Comments: |
Friends w/ Blogs
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 My Reading Queue 
 
 
 
 Just Finished 
 
 
 The Looooong List 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Previous Posts Unbelievable ------------ Blogging Hiatus ------------ People vs. Programs ------------ Okay, I'll try to Clarify ------------ That's Okay...Emergent is not for you anyway;) ------------ And so it begins... ------------ Emergent and Ecclesial Segregation (Part 1) ------------ Exorcising Descartes' Ghost ------------ Jogger Etiquette ------------ Cultural Hermeneutics ------------ Archives November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007
|
Welcome back my friend. I trust you graduated in good form and I look forward to more of theofragen. This is an interesting post and I look forward to the rest of this series. A couple of thoughts/questions.
A question: Is the hermeneutics of which Barr speaks—the switch between the literal and non-literal interpretation according to the dictates of one’s pre-formed theology—specific to evangelicals and modernity? It seems to me that such a hermeneutic has been around as long as the patristic age. Augustine and the other church fathers were constantly allegorizing the OT in an attempt to "salvage" it from its "unacceptable” and “crass” literal sense. (For instance, passages that spoke highly of sex had to be reinterpreted allegorically in reference to Christ and the Church, etc.) It would seem to me then, that it is not our unholy alliance with modernity that necessitates such a hermeneutic, but that it is endemic to all ages. We all, from now until the end, will be striving to make the text work for our agenda (you, me, Barr and Frei), no matter how hard we try to rise above our own personal context and agendas. For Barr to imply that only evangelical bring a pre-formed commitment to the text seems a bit disingenuous. I would imagine that even Frei and Barr would acknowledge that certain parts of the Scriptures are more preferably interpreted literally and others figuratively. To suppose that they have no personal agenda when they make these hermeneutical decisions, but posses only a “raw commitment to the truth” is naïve. I’m sure you acknowledge as much and imagine they would as well.
And secondly, a thought: It doesn't seem to me that Frei and evangelicals have such a substantially different hermeneutic (at least as you have noted here – I confess I haven’t read any of Frei). If Frei's hermeneutic is simply to separate "the problem of the meaning on the one hand and the truth on the other hand,” then what evangelical would deny this? None that I know of. As he goes on to say, “Even if I could not believe in its truth I wanted at least to be able to say I know the meaning of that which I cannot believe…I did not want, in order to be able to believe it, to reshape its meaning in such a way that it would render a truth that is acceptable to me." I couldn’t agree more with Frei’s comment here and I don’t know of any evangelicals who would deny this or intentionally reshape the meaning of the text in order to render it acceptable. And though I am sure it happens, I suspect that we do it no more than anyone else.
I’m sure there’s more to Frei’s hermeneutic than I understand, but from this particular post, it seems the only difference between Frei and evangelicals is that Frei finds less things in the text to “believe” (moving outward from the resurrection – which I have heard he affirms) than do evangelicals. For instance, suppose both I and Frei understand that Genesis 1 is best interpreted literally, thus we arrive at the same meaning, but I believe the meaning of the text and Frei does not (I actually have no idea what Frei thinks of Gen 1). We find the same meaning, but believe differently about the truth of that meaning. So the difference doesn’t seem to be primarily in hermeneutics, but in our willingness to accept what our basically identical hermeneutic delivers.
And finally, from what I know of Frei, he has been great for moving liberal theology toward the center. For this, evangelicals such as myself are grateful.