Showing posts with label hermeneutics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hermeneutics. Show all posts

Tuesday, 21 February 2023

Jesus and the Law

Rodney A. Whitacre reflects on the story of the woman caught in adultery and brought to Jesus (now mostly at John 7:53–8:11):

‘We see Jesus upholding the law’s teaching that adultery is sin while also setting aside the specific regulations concerning the community’s enforcement of that law. The implication is that the law contains revelation of right and wrong, which is true throughout history, as well as commandments for embodying that revelation in the community of God’s people, which are not true for all times and places. To understand this distinction we must understand that the law as revelation of right and wrong is not an arbitrary set of rules that God made up to test our obedience. Rather, the law is the transposition into human society of patterns of relationship that reflect God’s won character. Adultery is wrong because it violates relationships of faithfulness, and such violation is wrong, ultimately, because God himself is characterized by faithfulness. The morality of Scripture is a pattern of life that reflects God’s own life. This aspect of the law is unchanging, but the law’s prescription for how the community is to embody and enforce the revealed vision of relationships may vary.’

Monday, 5 December 2022

Mixing and Matching

President Josiah Bartlet:

Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?

In another post I point out that there is nothing to suggest that the death penalty was ever applied or expected to be applied in the case of someone planting different crops side by side or wearing garments made from two different threads. The insinuation here that it might is a form of bearing false witness to the biblical text.

But what is the significance of YHWH’s instructions for holy living in Leviticus 19, sandwiched as they are between two chapters which stress that the Israelites must distinguish themselves as holy by following YHWH’s commands and not the nations’ sexual and religious practices? We learn that holiness is not only about abstaining from certain practices but about being discerning in every sphere of life (cf. A Jewish definition of holiness). It means, e.g., engaging in economic practices that are pro-actively helpful to the poor (19:9-10), not just refraining from stealing and defrauding people (19:11). It means not to do harm even when there is little risk of being detected (19:14) and it means judicial impartiality (19:15). It means not only refraining from slander (19:16a) but also being pro-active about helping someone discern the wrong in which they are engaged (19:17). It means not only that one does not jeopardize a neighbour’s life (or allow a neighbour to be victimised, 19:16b, the precise meaning is uncertain) but also not to bear a grudge (19:18, “but love your neighbour as yourself”). And then it also means

“You are to keep my statutes. Do not crossbreed two different kinds of your livestock, sow your fields with two kinds of seed, or put on a garment made of two kinds of material.” (19:19)

According to some Jewish interpreters, “statutes” are “those laws for which no rational justification was obvious. They are to be treated as ‘decrees of the king,’ to be obeyed simply because they come from God. This,” as Ephraim Radner observes, “represents, at best, a pure fellow following of God’s will, at worst a kind of blind obedience. Holiness here is a cleaving to God, but not one imbued with a coherent understanding.” (Leviticus [London: SCM Press, 2008], 213) It may be the equivalent of a football jersey or a school uniform – a marker of identity which is largely arbitrary but not therefore irrelevant. Keeping these statutes may also be a training ground for authentic and faithful performance where it really matters, cf. Hayim Donin’s comments on food laws.

Others, however, do find a rationale. They suggest that the instructions against cross-breeding and mixing different kinds of seeds in one field are about keeping separate what the Creator God had made distinct, “respecting the categories he has established” (Jay Sklar, Leviticus, TOTC [Nottingham: IVP, and Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2013], 247, cf. Nahmanides [c.1194-c.1270], going further than the Rabbinic tradition of interpreting the mixing of different kinds of seeds as a prohibition against grafting). Understood in this way, the law could have implications for the ethics of genetic engineering. “But,” as Ephraim Radner notes, “God’s own love, which creates these in their discreet character, also seeks to bring them into the fullness of proximity with him” which leads him to a discussion of Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the weeds and Paul’s use of grafting imagery in Rom 11:17-24 (Leviticus, 214)

Sklar notes that the use of different kinds of fabric in making garments is not forbidden but wearing such clothing is. “The rationale may be that some priestly garments were made from mixed fabrics (woollen yarn and linen, Exod. 28:5). Since non-priestly Israelites were forbidden from doing priestly duties (Num. 3:10, 38), this prohibition would have prevented them from heading in that direction (cf. Josephus, Ant. 4.208 [4.8.11]), something the early Israelites were tempted to do (Num. 16:1-40).” (Sklar, Leviticus, 248). The more specific reference to wool and linen in Deut 22:11 supports this. The abrogation of this priesthood and its regulations would mean that this specific command is not directly applicable among the new covenant people although the principle of respecting the calling and ordination of some people to specific ministries remains. Radner suggests, again, that Christ’s passion brings together what had been kept distinct (Leviticus, 215-16). In a more beautiful world a Bishop in the Church of England with a PhD in Old Testament studies would help us explore this further rather than ape President Bartlet’s dismissive attitude to OT law.

Responding to President Bartlet

I want to reflect on some questions raised by President Josiah Bartlet in the TV drama The West Wing, Season Two, “The Midterms” (written by Aaron Sorkin).

The Jenna Jacobs character in the following exchange is apparently based on talk show host Laura Schlessinger. The Bartlet challenge is cribbed from an open letter written by Kent Ashcroft that circulated anonymously on the internet at the time.

Hyperlinks within the exchange point to my blog posts. The questions are obviously rhetorical. In addressing them I want to challenge the dismissive attitude towards the Old Testament they reveal.

 

Bartlet:
I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs:
I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.

President Josiah Bartlet:
Yes it does. Leviticus. [*]

Dr. Jenna Jacobs:
18:22.

President Josiah Bartlet:
Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here’s one that’s really important because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made fromtwo different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

[Dr. Jenna Jacobs stands]

 

[*] This rather depends on how one defines “homosexuality” and how one translates the relevant verse(s). Mark P. Stone recently published an overview of suggestions with regard to the latter in which he also observed that “while ‘homosexual acts’ are available for historical investigation in every human era, ‘homosexuality’ is not.” See ‘Don’t Do What to Whom? A Survey of Historical-Critical Scholarship on Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13,’ Currents in Biblical Research 20/3 (2022): 203-233. Casting his net wide and making every nuance count, Stone identifies twenty-one hypotheses on Lev 18:22 and 20:13.  He suggests that the sheer variety should lead one to hold any conclusions about the meaning of the text tentatively. Others may conclude that the variety demonstrates that the growing resistance to the most common reading (“you must not lie with a man as you would lie with a woman”) has not produced a plausible alternative and that the “traditional” understanding as a reference to male same-sex intercourse emerges the stronger for having been stress-tested in this way. But which way one leans here is, in a sense, irrelevant for contemporary questions in Christian ethics, if Biblical law is dismissed as irrelevant..

Here is Stone’s list:

  1. Same-Sex Eroticism (‘homosexuality’)
  2. Male Same-Sex Intercourse (both partners culpable)
  3. Sexual Intercourse between Israelite Males in The Promised Land
  4. Unrestrained Bisexuality
  5. Sexual Intercourse with Intersex Persons
  6. The Active/Insertive Partner in Male Anal Intercourse
  7. The Passive/Receptive Partner in Male Anal Intercourse
  8. Gender Confusion (male acting as female)
  9. Social Humiliation (male treated as female)
  10. Pederasty
  11. Male-Male Rape
  12. Idolatry
  13. Fear of Demons
  14. Male Cult Prostitution
  15. Improper Mixture of Defiling Substances (semen & excrement)
  16. Failure to Ensure Procreation (waste of semen)
  17. Improper Placement of Semen (i.e., not wastage)
  18. Redactional Layer Clarifying Implicit Acceptance in 18.7*, 14*
  19. Male Same-Sex Incest
  20. Ambiguous Paternity from Male-Male-Female Threesome
  21. Male Same-Sex Intercourse with an ‘Unavailable’ Man 

Working on the Sabbath

President Josiah Bartlet:

Can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? 

By phrasing the question in a way that assumes the existence of a police force and a strong culture of individualism, the distance to ancient Israel is immediately highlighted. There the context would less be one of individuals monitoring other individuals but of a community committed to a communal rest day which explicitly includes every resident, whatever their status in society (Exod 20:10), all across the country (Lev 23:3). It is a responsibility laid on the community as a whole and infringements would be dealt with by the community.

That Leo McGarry would insist on working on the Sabbath is plausible. Powerful people often like to think of themselves as too important to stop working (although it is perhaps also true that those with power over others like to imagine that their underlings want to work all the extra hours expected of them). It is arguably especially important for people who are “in charge” to be reminded regularly that they are not ultimately in charge of the world. Readiness to stop working is an acknowledgement that the flourishing of our world does not ultimately depend on my input. Designating the rest day as a holy day further underlines that it is the Holy One who is in charge of the world. Specifying the death penalty for breaking the Sabbath rest underlines the deadly seriousness of living as if oneself rather than YHWH is in charge. (Strictly speaking, exclusion from the community might perhaps have been another way of dealing with infringements once Israel was settled, given that the death penalty is only specified in the wilderness context.)

This holy day is given to a holy people. The incidents reported in Exod 32–34 have just highlighted the potential for sin to sabotage God’s presence. The warning in Exod 35:2 comes in the wake of all this, just as the book moves from the instructions for building God’s tabernacle to their implementation. Given that neither President Bartlet nor his Chief of Staff show any interest in God’s holy presence among his holy people, it seems altogether hypocritical for him to feign interest in keeping a holy day, let alone in punishing  others who do not keep the Sabbath. Of course Bartlet only means to imply that those who consider male same-sex intercourse a taboo (“abomination”) must also put to death those who break the Sabbath (with he himself being interested in neither) but it is not clear why this should be so. It seems perfectly possible for someone who reads the Bible as God’s Word written to deduce from the specification of the death penalty the seriousness of a matter, as one might deduce from taboo/abomination language the non-negotiability of a matter, without believing for a minute that our contemporary communal life should be organised in strict accordance with laws and penalties specified to ancient Israel on route from Egypt to the promised land. The church has centuries of experience with this, never accepting that the only options are either (a) to pretend that we are ancient Israel bound to strict observance of all the old covenant law and stipulations, or (b) entirely free to ignore whatever we do not like about these old covenant law and stipulations. Given that Leo McGarry is not a member of the community addressed in this text, it is bearing false witness to claim that “Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death.”

No Christian is under obligation to execute punishments stipulated under the old covenant. But neither should any Christian ignore what the laws reveal about the character, values and purposes of God. This reminder about the importance of Sabbath rest just before the narrative of the building of the tabernacle (cf. 31:12-17 right at the end of the instructions for the tabernacle, characterising the Sabbath as “a sign between me and the people of Israel”) perhaps puts the large amount of detailed work that is now required into perspective. Acknowledging that God is in charge by taking a break from work every seven days is more important than building the tabernacle as quickly as possible.

Just as the Sabbath marks the climax of the specification section (see 31:12–17), so now it stands in the forefront of the execution section…The Sabbath as weekly day of rest takes precedence over even the urgent work of constructing the tabernacle as the dwelling place of YHWH among the Israelites. To observe the Sabbath is to participate in the perfection and completion of God’s own creative work. This is the essential context within which all human labor takes place.

William Johnstone, Exodus 1–40, SHBC (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2014), 435–436

Monday, 21 November 2022

Of trajectories

‘The idea of a trajectory or a redemptive-movement approach to understanding and applying Scripture is hardly a new concept’ is the opening sentence in William J. Webb’s ‘A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic: Encouraging Dialogue Among Four Evangelical Views,’ JETS 48 (2005): 331-49. Steven Croft notes,

Many evangelicals with a high view of the Scriptures find themselves persuaded by this trajectory argument on the question of the equality and inclusion of women in leadership and ministry, despite the prohibitions to the contrary contained in some parts of the New Testament. However, they are unable to discover a parallel trajectory on questions of human sexuality and the recognition of same-sex relationship.

He adds

I believe that trajectory is manifestly present. The direction of travel in the New Testament trajectory is undeniably towards the worth of each individual, the equal value of all humanity, and the freedom that is entrusted to us in Christ.

But it is not clear how he identifies a trajectory within the New Testament. A trajectory implies movement along a path. Where is the beginning of the path and where its end? Does he mean to imply that while Jesus in the Gospels is a bit hazy about the worth of each individual (perhaps thinking of the incident with the Syro-Phoenician woman?), Paul has a better grasp of it (in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek), and the book of Revelation gives us the clearest picture of the equal value of all humanity (a great multitude from every nation, tribe , people and language)? Against this, Croft sees the Biblical understanding of human worth as flowing ‘most of all, from the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ and the life that Jesus lives’. Given that the incarnation and the life of Jesus arguably stand at the beginning, not the end of the path traced in the NT, it is hard to see what kind of trajectory there might be, or is it that Jesus himself, prior to his cross and resurrection, did not yet fully realise what would flow from his life?

Croft observes that ‘this understanding of human worth and dignity…is unfolded from Genesis to Revelation.’ Clearly, man and woman made in the image of God is a key marker of human worth and dignity. Does Croft believe that the implications of this are seen more clearly in Revelation 21-22 than in Genesis 1-3? Does the OT focus on Abraham and his seed (‘in whom all the families of the earth shall be blessed’ [Genesis 12:3]) suggest to Croft uncertainty about ‘the equal value of all humanity’? Even if that were the case, the Bishop of Oxford must surely know that many Christians past and present would strongly contest the view that the OT is equivocal about the worth of each individual, the equal value of all humanity.

The problem here is arguably that Croft accepts the widespread cultural belief that denying sexual intimacy within same-sex relationships denies the value and worth of some individuals. In other words, the key element of the alleged ‘trajectory’ is not taken from Scripture which makes it hard to claim that the trajectory is to be found in Scripture itself. This is essentially different from ‘the question of the equality and inclusion of women in leadership and ministry’ which needs to be addressed in the light of diverse passages which directly concern the matter but at least on first reading seem to point in different directions. The same is true for the argument about slavery and about divorce. In all these cases, the church had to bring into conversation passages which directly address the matter at hand and it has historically done so, knowing that ‘it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another’ (Article 20 of The Thirty-Nine Articles). By contrast, in seeking to redraw the boundaries of sexual morality, Croft suspends the teaching of passages which directly address the matter in the light of his belief about what ‘the worth of each individual, the equal value of all humanity, and the freedom that is entrusted to us in Christ’ imply. This reflects a different hermeneutical approach and a different view of the authority of Scripture from what the Church of England has historically taught.

What about freedom in Christ? This, too, is not best described in the language of trajectory. There is no ever growing movement of freedom in Christ through the Bible or even the NT. The freedom for which Christ has set us free came at a definite moment in history and relates to the end of the old covenant which was brought about by the establishment of a new covenant. This new covenant comes with the same call to be holy and blameless before God (cf. Ephesians 1:4) but no longer is a nation sanctified, set apart for God’s special purpose, and the worship of God in Spirit and in truth no longer needs the regulations that concerned the shadow of the substance that is fulfilled and accomplished in Christ.

Of commandments and prohibitions

Steve Croft’s Together in Love and Faith observes that ‘resistance to changing the position of the Church of England on sexually active same-sex partnerships is principally focused on the prohibition, in biblical texts, on sexual activity between two people of the same gender.’ This seems to be true, if by ‘gender’ we mean ‘sex’ (it is doubtful that within Scripture we can speak of ‘gender’ as a category distinct from biological sex) and understand  ‘prohibition’ as broad enough to include New Testament censures of sexual intimacy outside (diverse-sex) marriage. The Bishop of Oxford appears to address this ‘roadblock’ in a twofold manner: by cancelling the prohibitions and by postulating a trajectory which allows for a re-shaping of biblical morality.

A rhetorical question sums up the argument: ‘how many other commandments and regulations in Leviticus does the Church keep and teach today?’ Croft appears to suggest that we need not pay any attention to perhaps different ways in which various commandments and regulations function within Leviticus, nor to the way in which the church throughout the ages has differentiated between them. We must treat all the commandments and regulations the same – either they are all binding on us or none of them are. This impression is reinforced by the citation of the ‘powerful moment’ in The West Wing in which President Bartlet replies to a Christian fundamentalist who quotes Leviticus 18:22 at him [*] by pointing out that we ignore, among other things, the injunctions against planting two kinds of seed in the same field and against wearing garments made from two kinds of materials (Lev 19:19), implying that we are therefore free to ignore what Leviticus says about sexual morality.

We can ignore all these commandments, according to Croft, because ‘the view of ethics and morality set out in Leviticus has been revised and adapted within the Biblical period and beyond it, in the light of the incarnation, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Because of these truths, everything has changed.’ To me this sounds rather different from what the Thirty-Nine Articles claim about the Old Testament:

THE Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

Note that the Bishop of Oxford does not suggest here that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 should be re-interpreted as civil law which need not be received in our society but he seems to dispense with the threefold division of the law itself (cf. later: ‘Gentile Christians are not to be bound by the law of Moses’). Sorting commandments into three boxes labelled ‘ceremonial’, ‘civil’ and ‘moral’ can indeed be problematic but failure to distinguish between the different functions of the law which translate into different ways in which individual commandments might be considered binding on Christians is a different matter altogether. ‘Not uniquely Eastern or Western; Roman Catholic or Protestant; conservative or liberal; Patristic or Puritan; Thomist, Calvinist, or anything else; the threefold division of the law is catholic doctrine.’ (Phillip S. Ross, cited from an article by Nicholas J. Mattai). We may agree that (non-Jewish, and I would suggest Jewish) Christians are not legally bound to the Sinai law but we are arguably morally bound to commandments which reflect the character of God and his universal purposes.

Croft is somewhat less cavalier in his treatment of NT texts such as 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. He is right to note that the full list covers the majority of us and that the emphasis falls on the conclusion ‘And some of you used to be like this. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God’ (verse 11). The verses should not be used to victimise others. But we are warned not to be deceived (verse 9): sexual activity in same-sex relationships is listed alongside idolatry, adultery and other forms of sexual immorality, theft and robbery, greed, drunkenness, verbal abuse and fraud as activities from which we need to be cleansed in order to inherit the kingdom of God. Croft acknowledges that if the relevant Greek terms do not refer exclusively to abusive relationships but to all sexual activity in same-sex relationships, this ‘would support no change in the present position of the Church.’ Alas, he provides no reference or justification for why the Church should commit to the alternative view that this only refers to abusive relationships, even though the Living in Love and Faith book notes the obvious point that ‘there were common Greek terms used to describe these practices, not used here by Paul’ (292).

Croft suggests that ‘the apostles are very careful not to define “porneia” closely in their letter[s]’, as if they went out of their way to keep matters open for ‘a modest redrawing of the boundaries of what constitutes…sexual morality’ by later Christians. But I know of no example of the church re-defining sexual morality in the first nearly two thousand years of its history and can see nothing to suggest an effort on the apostles’ part to keep the definition of sexual morality vague. It seems more obvious that they left porneia undefined because sexual immorality had already been defined in the OT and they saw no need for boundaries to be redrawn by themselves or later Christians. Joshua Pendock observes in his open letter to Steven Croft

It is not difficult to imagine the early Church looking at the wicked examples of pederasty in Greek culture and arguing, ‘there are holier ways of practising same-sex love’. Examples could easily have been given of loving same-sex couples in the Greek world. Furthermore, the argument could easily have been made that considering the eschatological non-procreational issues of sexuality raised by Jesus’ reference to being ‘like the angels’, early Christian theologians could have Christianised same-sex activity through notions of faithfulness and covenant. Considering the strangeness of Christian practice in comparison to the Mediterranean world as witnessed to by the contextually bizarre practices of virginity and celibate marriages, notions of same-sex blessing and even marriage could easily have developed in such an environment. It may even have helped with evangelising many a Greek man.

But they did not. Steven Croft’s assumption that the apostles did not know about loving same-sex relationships and his conviction that our modern knowledge of sexual identity and orientation puts us at such an advantage over Moses at Sinai, Jesus in Galilee and Judah and Paul in the Greco-Roman world that we can now formulate a better, more just sexual ethics than they were able to do, has to carry a lot of weight. Put in the balance it seems to allow him to make light of biblical commandments and prohibitions.

When the Church previously declared that a specific injunction was no longer directly applicable to God’s people, we were still able to affirm that the law was good and right and just for the time and place for which it was given – God's commandments were not suspended on the grounds that people back then were ignorant about things of which we are now cognisant.  To say that at the right time a greater high priest inaugurated a new covenant by his supreme sacrifice which takes away the animal sacrifices under the old covenant is one thing; to say that we no longer bring animal sacrifices because we now know that animals have feelings too and must not be killed would be an altogether different thing. Analogically, Croft’s argument seems a lot closer to the latter than the former.


[*] This is how Croft presents the scene, not entirely accurately. The President actually opens the verbal confrontation.

Wednesday, 23 August 2017

Reading the Bible Like Any Other Book

Among the slogans that set the agenda for much modem study of the Bible, the prescription that it should be read “like any other book” seems to me singularly unhelpful. We do not read Stiff Upper Lip, Jeeves or Have it Your Way, Charlie Brown the same way we read Hamlet or King Lear. Critique of Pure Reason and The House at Pooh Corner are both, I believe, eminently worth reading (though, in the one instance, I am relying on others’ assurances), but they call for rather different approaches. Textbook of Medical Oncology requires yet another. To cut short a game becoming more fun by the minute, we may well ask: Like which other book are we supposed to read the Bible?
To be sure, these and other books can all be read the same way if we approach each with a particular question in mind: How frequently does the author split infinitives, dangle participles, or quote Russian proverbs? Or, what do Romeo and Juliet, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, and Pippi Longstocking tell us about eating habits at the time of their composition? (This game, too, could be fun.) These are, I suppose, legitimate questions — doctoral dissertations have certainly been written on stranger topics — but they seem somewhat limiting. Classic literature — William Shakespeare, Søren Kierkegaard, Astrid Lindgren — has more to offer its readers; those open to experiencing the “more” soon learn that different books make different demands on their readers.
Unless, then, we are reading the Bible merely to carry out our own limiting agendas, the notion that it should be read “like any other book” will be true only in the sense that the Bible, like any other book, calls for a particular kind of reading. Sensitive readers of the Bible, like sensitive readers of any text, will be alert to what is being asked of them, given the nature of the text before them; it is then, of course, up to their discretion whether they will attempt to measure up to those demands.


Stephen Westerholm & Martin Westerholm, Reading Sacred Scripture: Voices from the History of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans , 2016), 1-2

Tuesday, 22 August 2017

Language and Interpretation according to Nevin

An excerpt from William DiPuccio, The Interior Sense of Scripture: The Sacred Hermeneutics of John W. Nevin (Studies in American Biblical Hermeneutics 14; Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1998), pages 102-105.

The unity of thought and language has tremendous implications for Nevin’s hermeneutics. The “in-forming word” (thought) is the basis from which the “word processional” (language) emanates. We cannot, therefore, consider the interpretation of language apart from the “animating spirit” from which it derives its “being.” Language is not merely the “algebraic sign” of this animating soul, “but the very form in which it looks out upon us with its own living presence.” There is a “spiritual element,” a “distinctive life,” which belongs even to the outward form of language. This needs to be grasped before the language can be understood. The key to the meaning of language, then lies in the soul of words which is in them “objectively before they reach our minds.”
Nevin draws a graphic example of his linguistic theory from poetry. Without “poetic taste” no amount of philology or history can reveal the sense of great poets like Homer, Horace, Shakespeare or Goethe. The language of the poet affects the minds of his readers only as they are drawn into felt sympathy with the spiritual elements of his own life. By “spiritual infection” they thus become poets in their own measure and so enter into the “true historical sense” of his or her language. Only the “spirit of poetry” – that is, the same mind in both the poet and the readers – can be trusted to articulate the sense of a poet’s composition. All language is thus “the embodiment of spirit in word.” The soul that is in literature, art, and science can only be grasped “by inward soul-intuition.”
If this is true of language in its capacity to convey natural truths, how much more is it true when such language is animated by the substance of supernatural truth? As in poetry the mind of God lodges itself in the Scriptures so that it cannot be understood or explained apart from this supernatural and spiritual element which is “part of its very being.” The divine and the human meet together in the totality of what is spoken and so must also be apprehended “each in the other” in order to render the language intelligible. Or, in the language of Ricoeurean hermeneutics, to “experience” the world of the text the reader needs to engage the text with some attitude of belief.
Nevin believed that the outward letter of Scripture can never exhaust its meaning and power because the mind of God is truly in the Bible. The situation is analogous to common human speech which involves much more than we can see or record. Our “external natural mind,” as he explains it, forms only a small part of “our full inward existence.” Within this, our rational mind opens “right into the spiritual world itself; and there it is, that the real complex forces, which enter as innumerable fibres into the constitution of our outward conscious thought and speech, are all the time at work for this end – though we know it not.” Behind the complex web of human language, therefore, “is the interior ocean of things, invisible, immaterial, and eternal – the region of the universal in distinction from the single and particular, the region of ends and causes in distinction from mere effects – which is continually pressing, as it were, to come to some utterance in his outward thought and speech.”
The propositions of Scripture, then, are pregnant with a sense going beyond logic and grammar. Neither thought nor language alone can fully fathom them. In this way, Nevin could say that the Scriptures are mystical. Not that they are shrouded in uncertainty, rather they possess an undivided simplicity. John’s gospel, for instance, has the logical sharpness of a scholastic and the depth of a mystic. he was intuitive and contemplative, seeing the object with the soul.
But how is it, asks Nevin, that the divine life (which he regards the spirit of prophecy) can “be actually resident in the words spoken, when the speech itself is at an end,” much less in a printed book? In the constitution of God’s word, whether spoken or written, nothing less in reality than a Divine life of its own, derived from the life which it is thus made to enshrine.” The words of Christ are spirit and life. As such they must enclose “universally the quality of His own being.” Standing in the power and glory of the heavenly and spiritual world, they are “interiorly pregnant also with the celestial fire of that life.”
Obviously, existential participation in this Divine reality involves more than reading and studying the word for Nevin. It necessitates both obedience and faith. Keeping Christ’s commandments is nothing less than “the simple being of the soul in the element of spirit and life thus effluent from Himself.” The ancients, according to Nevin, attributed wisdom to the one “who had the knowledge of the good in himself practically, as his own inmost being – something well understood, at the same time, to be in him only by indwelling inspiration from the Almighty.”
Nevin identifies this dimension of participation with faith. Like Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the quintessential Romantic, Nevin defines faith as the organ by which the supernatural element in Scripture is grasped. It is “an original capacity for perceiving the divine.” There is, therefore, “an original, necessary correlation” between faith and the objective side of revelation just as there is a correlation between the eye and the light it sees. As in art and poetry, the object is not placed in the word by the interpreter nor produced by the word, rather it is already in the word, waiting to be grasped. The word of God possesses an innate potency and life by which, as 1 Peter 1:23 says, we are born again. In the words of Jesus, “He that is of God heareth God’s words; ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.”


The Sacred Hermeneutics of John W. Nevin

William DiPuccio, The Interior Sense of Scripture: The Sacred Hermeneutics of John W. Nevin (Studies in American Biblical Hermeneutics 14; Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1998).

From the back cover:
John Williamson Nevin (1803-1886) was, with Philip Schaff and others, a progenitor of the “Mercersburg Theology.” Nevin’s transcendental hermeneutics is one of the most penetrating and sophisticated theological systems to emerge from American soil. In The Interior Sense of Scripture, William DiPuccio unfolds for the first time Nevin’s vision of a biblical hermeneutic based on the centrality of the Incarnation. In part I DiPuccio explores Nevin’s hermeneutics of a new creation and the Eucharist. In Part II he presents Nevin’s critique of American culture in the light of his hermeneutical conclusions. More than a century has passed since he spoke, yet Nevin’s polemic against materialism, religious skepticism, individualism, and sectarianism retains its creative force and insight.
     For Nevin, the Incarnation is the transcendental (or top-down) archetype of all hermeneutics and philosophy. And it is as true today that the decay of American culture and religion lies in its widespread adoption of Common Sense Realism (a bottom-up paradigm) which values the material above the spiritual, the actual above the ideal, and the particular above the universal. Thus Nevin’s transcendental/incarnational hermeneutics is as appropriate for the current worldview situation as for his own time.

The blurb should have alerted me to the prominence given in this work to cultural critique. The title led me to expect rather more on Biblical hermeneutics – how to read the Scriptures – and so I was disappointed. It was nevertheless valuable to read about the conflict between William Nevin and Charles Hodge and to see how sacramental realism/nominalism are connected with traditional/modern approaches to Scripture. Metaphysics and hermeneutics are indeed closely tied together.

Friday, 14 July 2017

Figural practice as a five-fold movement

From Ephraim Radner, Figural exegesis and the Anglican tradition
Figural practice can be imaginatively described as a five-fold movement: sowing, tending, gathering, sorting, and enjoying. There is nothing inevitable about this imaginative framework, of course, although it does have the advantage of having some scriptural resonance. In sowing, a biblical word is cast into the soil of the Scriptures and allowed to resonate, collide, scrape, and wander. In tending, there is a deliberate effort to let this seed do its resonating work — time, prayer, reflection, study. In gathering, the reader (ultimately the Church) consciously collates the accumulated connections and associations the original word or words have taken on. These become a fund or treasury, and at this point are most clearly given over to documentation. With sorting we come to the articulated effort to make sense of this collation. This is the stage we associate with theology or homiletics, dogmatics or controversy. Finally, in scriptural delight, the reader (and Church) turns all this work to God, and returns to prayer, considering the nurture the word has offered, and praising its speaker and person.

Figural Reading in the Anglican Tradition

The Living Church website recently run a series on Figural Reading in the Anglican Tradition. It consisted of the following posts published between 14 March and 20 June 2017:
Introductory essay by David Ney, “The bare reading of Scripture and Anglican hermeneutics
First, I will suggest that being a community gathered around the Word of God is central to Anglican identity. Second, I will argue that, historically, to speak of Anglicanism as a community gathered around the Word is to speak of the prayer book tradition and the way it orders the communal reception of God’s Word. Finally, I will suggest that this ordered reception breeds a particular response to Scripture: the prayer book’s juxtaposition of “bare” Scriptural texts commends figural reading.
Ephraim Radner, Figural exegesis and the Anglican tradition

From the final essay:
The different articles have emphasized that the individual interpreters had their unique approaches to figural interpretation, but they all approached their craft from a particular standpoint: As members of the prayer book tradition they received the “allness” of Scripture, and their particular figural practices therefore must be seen as particular responses to this allness. In this final post, I will suggest that these figural practices are far more than merely idiosyncratic responses to Scripture’s breadth. These practices help us to see that, for Anglicans and non-Anglicans alike, the Christian interpretation of Scripture has little to do with the division between subject and object that modern critical studies take for granted. Instead, Christian readers are drawn into the Scriptures, unveiled for who they are, and, through the integrative reach of the divine Word, transformed. When pursued in common, the figural interpretation of the Bible finally refashions and transfigures the Church as a whole.

Tuesday, 11 July 2017

Metaphysics of Participation

“The Catholic exegete and theologian Francis Martin has shown that biblical interpretation requires an account of historical reality informed by a scriptural metaphysics rooted in the relation of “participation” that is creation.[1] This is so because exegesis (including much contemporary exegesis) that participates doctrinally and spiritually in the realities depicted by Scripture, and thus reads Scripture not merely as a record of something strictly in the past, requires the sense that all human time participates metaphysically (order of creation) and Christologically-pneumatologically (order of grace) in God’s eternal Providence and therefore that no historical text or event can be studied strictly “on its own terms.” Conversely, certain metaphysical presuppositions are inadequate to Christian biblical interpretation.”



[1] Francis Martin, “Revelation as Disclosure: Creation,” in Wisdom and Holiness, Science and Scholarship: Essays in Honor of Matthew L. Lamb, ed. Michael Dauphinais and Matthew Levering (Naples, Fla.: Sapientia Press, 2007), 205-47.


Matthew Levering's Participatory Biblical Exegesis: A Theology of Biblical Interpretation (University of Notre Dame Press, 2008), 18.

Participatory Biblical Exegesis

From the introductory chapter of Matthew Levering's Participatory Biblical Exegesis: A Theology of Biblical Interpretation (University of Notre Dame Press, 2008).

“Participatory biblical exegesis locates the linear-historical details within a participatory-historical frame, a frame established by God’s creative and redemptive work in history. Such exegesis is ongoing whenever people presume that a biblical text about Jesus is about the Jesus whom they worship in the Church, or whenever people suppose that the local churches founded by St. Paul have a real analogue today. It is ongoing whenever people pray, receive the sacraments, or ask forgiveness in the context of the reading and teaching of Scripture, It involves an understanding of historical realities, of our place in the history of salvation, that comes naturally to the believer. Yet it is one whose justification has largely been lost and needs reclaiming.” (6)

“As traditionally understood, the spiritual sense of Scripture serves to go deeper into the infinitely rich dimensions of the biblical realities.” “I hold that the literal sense itself possesses the resources for bridging past and present, because of the literals sense’s conjoined linear and participatory dimension. The literal sense of the divinely ordained realities present and active in linear history (for instance, covenantal Israel, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Eucharist, the Church) possesses a participatory-historical dimension, since these diachronic realities expose how human time, already metaphysically participatory in God, shares ever more deeply in the infinite wisdom and love of divine action...I am aware that all the talk of metaphysics (participatory and nominalist) and its exegetical implications may put off both biblical scholars and theologians, for whom such discourse may be an undiscovered country or an outmoded theory.” (7)

“...interpreters must seek in and through Scripture the realities to which Scripture points. Yet these realities can only be sought in and through the words of Scripture, in and through the messiness of human history, into which linear-historical research can attain such valuable insight. For its full flourishing, participatory biblical exegesis thus requires not merely theological and metaphysical insights into God’s work of creation and redemption, but also historical-critical procedure of hypothesis and verification, as well as literary analysis. These approaches give insight into the full fabric of the texts’ richly human aspects, which are both participatory- and linear-historical. The integrity of linear-historical research does not require bracketing the participatory reality of God’s presence and action in history.
     In short, historical reconstruction that recognizes that historical reality is not solely linear, but rather is both linear and participatory (in the triune God’s creative and redemptive work), will be illumined both by linear-historical data and by participatory-historical ecclesial judgments about the divine realities involved.” (13)

“When the participatory dimension of reality is lacking, either anthropocentric readings of Scripture or, conversely, theocentric readings that deny the human dimension altogether, take over. By contrast, in participatory biblical exegesis one can integrate conceptually divine and human agency. On the one hand, everything comes from the triune God, the one in whom all finite things participate (metaphysically and Christologically-pneumatologically). For biblical exegesis, this means that the Bible is not ultimately about human beings, but rather about the triune God...On the other hand, the participatory relationship means that God’s action and human action are not in competition. In Scripture, the centrality of God’s teaching does not displace the human writing, editing, transmission, and interpretation of biblical texts, that is the human aspects of the text. These human aspects, of course, are not solely linear-historical. The task of appreciating the linear-historical “Messiness” of the biblical texts requires engaging the human aspects in their participatory-historical dimension.” (14)


“Once one understands reality as participatory-historical (providential and Christological-pneumatological) as well as linear-historical, what aspects of patristic-medieval biblical exegesis might once again be found valuable within contemporary biblical exegesis? Let this question stand as an overarching concern of the present book.” (16)

Wednesday, 17 February 2016

Agreeing and Disagreeing with Angus Ritchie, Part Three

In another piece published on ABC , responding to Ian Paul’s critique, Angus Ritchie puts his finger on the institutional hypocrisy of the Church of England. Our official position on same-sex relationships is clear but it is a facade behind which "gay ordinands may well have been encouraged by all of the key authority figures with whom they had to deal - including their Vicar, the staff at theological college and even perhaps their Bishop - to become priests without becoming celibate."
There is therefore "an important dis-analogy between blessing, and allowing clergy to be in, sexually active same-sex relationships and ordaining women to the episcopate." The latter did and could only happen after legal provision for it; the former is happening right now.
“In certain sections of the Church, the official line has been quietly ignored for years. This gentle and genteel form of civil disobedience is endemic in the Church of England. If we are frank, we must recognize that similar forms of rule-breaking go on in all its theological traditions.”
Ritchie’s central point is that the status quo is no longer sustainable because
"The reality today is than an increasing number of clergy, with growing boldness, are defying the official teaching on same-sex relationships."
In short, the genie is out of the bottle. Traditionalists are kidding themselves if they believe that the genie can be bottled up again. The only feasible way forward is to smash the bottle. 
Knowledge of the Church of England's institutional hypocrisy urges compassion in dealing with clergy who had been encouraged to believe that the church's teaching on celibacy can be disregarded; it can hardly be a sufficient reason for changing its teaching. In the ABC piece to which Angus Ritchie responds, Ian Paul had argued that on Scriptural grounds and for practical reasons it will not be possible to agree to disagree on same-sex relationships. 
In his reply Ritchie focuses on Romans 1:26-27 which he interprets with Loveday Alexander (in an essay in Grace and Disagreement) as referring to “a distortion of the default sexual identity, which Paul assumes to be heterosexual.” This means,
“Whereas for St. Paul, homosexual practice was a perversion practiced by people who were understood to have a fundamentally heterosexual identity, Loveday Alexander's claim is that today, ‘we know some people are born gay.’”
In other words, Paul’s reasoning in Romans 1:26-27 proceeds from what we today know to be wrong assumptions and therefore needs to be qualified.[1] For Ritchie this is 
“but another instance of a challenge at least as old as the Galileo affair... Respecting the authority of Scripture is a very different thing from accepting the validity of the scientific worldview of the cultures in which it was written, and to which it was addressed.”
This glosses over the significant hermeneutical difference between Ritchie’s approach and the approach traditionally practiced within the church.[2] Has the church ever declared a theological statement within Scripture or a Biblical prohibition of certain acts no longer valid because she now recognises it to be without foundation, having been based on faulty science?[3]
The departure from traditional Christian hermeneutics is somewhat softened later by the claim that,
“The question which arises for the Church today, and did not arise for St. Paul, is that within its Body there are same-sex couples whose relationships bear these same marks - couples for whom it is also "not good to be alone," but for whom heterosexual marriage is not an option. Theirs are also covenant relationships, where people choose to build a common life, "forsaking all others."
So while Paul held wrong beliefs, he was not wrong (at the time) to condemn sexual activity between partners of the same sex. It seems that Ritchie is committed to the claim that all same-sex relationships within the ancient world were abusive or at least that the apostle in his context was justified in failing to consider the possibility of faithful, loving same-sex relationships.
Ritchie seeks to persuade readers that the view that approves of sexual activity among same-sex couples who are committed to a permanent, faithful and stable relationship is not in fact "outside of Christian moral teaching."
He shows himself puzzled about the practical obstacles Ian Paul outlined. What he seems to overlook is that for “two integrities” to work it is not enough for each side to acknowledge that the other side sincerely believes to be inside Christian moral teaching. What is required is for both sides to be persuaded that both “integrities” are in fact inside Christian moral teaching. But the traditional view is that sexual intimacy outside marriage between a man and a woman is "outside of Christian moral teaching." In other words, traditionalist are asked to abandon the traditional view. It is hard not to see this as an obstacle.
While I do not want to put undue weight on a side comment, the following quotation seems to me to put the finger on a critical issue:
“I remain unconvinced that this can get Dr Paul to his desired conclusion on women's leadership. But that is a debate for another day: we both support the ordination of women, so let us focus instead on the issue where we disagree.”
It illustrates the lack of agreement on where the disagreement lies. Angus Ritchie gives the impression that what really matters is getting to the desired conclusion, never mind how. And he attributes the same thinking to Ian Paul. Because he acknoweldges that we are not likely to agree on this issue, we must agree to disagree. But the crucial issue is not “the issue where we disagree” but our different ways of reasoning. 

Angus Ritchie may genuinely believe that, "It is possible to be affirming of same-sex unions with every bit as high a doctrine of Scripture, every bit as faithful a hermeneutic and every bit as serious an attitude to sexual sin" but he provides little evidence to back this up. It is not altogether clear what "sexual sin" is in his account. (Is there sexual activity that is free of exploitation and abuse and does not obviously harm a third party, i.e. sexual activity which is not wrong for reasons other than those specifically related to sex, which is nevertheless wrong because it is "sexual sin" and on what grounds? Is there a middle ground between sacramental and idolatrous?) 

It is not at all clear that the hermeneutic he assumes is faithful, as none of the precedents suggested here ("Galileo affair") or previously (remarriage of divorcees, the ordination of women) stand up to scrutiny, and claims to a high view of Scripture need to be grounded in exegesis that is humbly and patiently seeking to discern what God is saying to us. It may be unavoidable that much exegesis concerned with the issue at hand looks agenda-driven but Ritchie has done little to dispel this impression, picking up Loveday Alexander's reading of Romans 1:26-27 apparently because Ian Paul has made some appreciative noises about this essay and not necessarily because her understanding of "nature" is the most plausible. Given that Loveday Alexander offers no defence of this reading in the essay in question and Ritchie offers no reflection on the other passages, we do not see the exegesis at work which would warrant the claims made.




[1] The literature that could be considered here is voluminous. Roy Bowen Ward, "Why Unnatural? The Tradition behind Romans 1:26-27," Harvard Theological Review 90 (1997): 263-84, focuses on contextual background. Theodore de Bruyn, "Ambrosiaster's Interpretations of Romans 1:26-27," Vigiliae Christianae 65 (2011): 463-83, offers insight into how early Christians read the verses.
[2] Margaret Davies, in an essay commended by Loveday Alexander, speaks of Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 as "an anomalous emotional blindspot in an otherwise radical transformation of tradition" ("New Testament Ethics and Ours: Homosexuality and Sexuality in Romans 1:26-27," Biblical Interpretation 3 [1995],  318). This is hardly the language traditionally used in Christian reasoning.
[3] The "Galileo affair," is much misrepresented today and cannot do the work to which Ritchie wants to put it. In the words of Dinesh D'Souza, "The Church's view of heliocentrism was hardly a dogmatic one. When Cardinal Bellarmine met with Galileo he said, “While experience tells us plainly that the earth is standing still, if there were a real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe…and that the sun goes not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me.”"

Thursday, 20 February 2014

Good Readers of Scripture



What makes a good reader of Scripture? David Runcorn relates his emotional journey towards becoming an “including evangelical” which highlights that the context in which his faith was re-awakened was one in which “homosexuality drew very particular condemnation” as “the sin of sins.” He observes that this means that “for many in this tradition the subject of same-sex relationships comes charged with powerful emotional responses.”

Revulsion, distress or anxiety are not measures of the rightness of any viewpoint. Still less are signs of biblical fidelity. They may just be telling me I am revolted, anxious and distressed about an issue. And that calls me to attend more carefully to my personal journey into a mature and secure awareness of my own sexual identity and desires.

There is a widespread assumption that anyone opposing same-sex marriage must do so from deeply felt or buried irrational revulsion. (Claiming that one does not recognise within oneself any revulsion, distress or anxiety in relation to LGBT people will then be seen as proof of repressed emotions.) It is not clear whether David Runcorn himself believes that revulsion lies necessarily at the heart of less permissive readings of Scripture but where it does, it can indicate a problem. Certainly, good readers will seek to be aware of their emotional responses and examine them with the help of others.

I must start with self-examination. How defensive or defended am I? How do I cope with criticism? What is my response to being found wrong or making a mistake? How graciously do I receive and take time over viewpoints that challenge my own in ways I cannot simply refute? I will need the help of truthful friends to know the answer to these questions.

This is sound advice as much as the need for reading within community which is particularly important for any who are tempted to put themselves at the centre of the process of reading Scripture, believing that they are in control of text and process. 

Such humility must include respect for facts – historical and linguistic facts among others. Richard Burridge called for the inclusion of biblical scholars in the facilitated conversations in the wake of the Pilling Report. We can surely agree that exegetes can “offer the Christian community some expertise and methods to enable them to grapple with the text themselves” and probably also that their role is not to provide “the correct answer” as if they were the final authority on reading Scripture. Nevertheless, trained exegetes will sometimes need to say that a particular reading is implausible because it rests on unsound linguistic or historical assumptions. With all respect for “ordinary readings,” not all readings are equal.

A good reader of Scripture is also a canonical reader. Given the widespread ignorance about Scripture even among the clergy this is a significant challenge. Again, both is true: people with little knowledge of the Bible can offer profound insights and should be heard, but readings are validated with reference to the whole of Scripture and those with a fuller grasp of the canon are therefore in a better position to judge the validity of readings than others. 

There is a creedal and catholic context to the interpretation of Scripture. Ian Paul points out what happens when this context is set aside, quoting Jeff Astley’s Grove booklet Taking Ordinary Theology Seriously. It is important to respect “ordinary readers” but we should not be naïve about the impact of sin on our readings. One need not believe that there is only one correct reading of any given passage to claim that some readings fails to be Christian and therefore cannot claim the same status within the church as other readings. There is an interrelationship between the individual and the community. The church’s reading of Scripture is not a simple aggregate of readings offered within a church context. Cf. the Wisdom of Richard Hooker.

There is a pastoral context to the interpretation of Scripture. David Runcorn notes

Pastoral and personal experience makes plain that the evangelical tradition has not been fruitful in communicating the love and life of Christ to LGBT people.

We should not respond to this simply by pointing out that a number of LGBT people will not feel loved and affirmed, whatever your welcome, as long as sex outside marriage is disapproved. This is true and is not a sufficient reason to adopt a more permissive stance to sexual activity outside marriage, if chastity is part of what it means to imitate Christ. But it is also true that (some) evangelicals have been quick to condemn, appealing to texts such as Ephesians 5:5.  Many LGBT people do not recognise themselves in such biblical condemnations of same-sex activity. David Runcorn urges

We need to take it seriously when one of the most familiar results of trying to apply biblical texts to contemporary same-sex relationships is that those being referred to simply do not recognise themselves there at all. This is not that. Indeed the very idea is actually offensive.  We need to listen to this.

We need to listen indeed – and ask questions of ourselves and the texts. The conclusion may be that the sexual greed condemned in Ephesians5:5 is not a good fit with a particular same-sex relationship.

In his contribution to the Pilling Report, David Runcorn refers to Romans 1 in this context. The picture of depravity there does not look anything like many people in same-sex relationships that he or I know. But nor does it look anything like any Hindu people I know. While it is possible that Paul had no knowledge of “faithful, covenanted, same sex relationships,” it is very unlikely that he had no experience of morally upright idol-worshippers. 

Most people today would not recognise themselves in Romans 1 but we have little reason to believe that many first-century pagans recognised themselves in this picture either. It is a composite worst-case scenario (so to speak). There are few, if any, people then or now to whom every single thing listed in Romans 1:21-32 would apply. We would mis-interpret the text if we concluded from it that because someone is a gossip, they must also be an idol-worshipper, or because they engage in lesbian sex, they must also be heartless. Listening to our pastoral context can help prevent such a misreading.

Humble and self-reflective readers listen to the voice of biblical scholars and theologians as well as to the experience of those affected by our readings without allowing either to shape our readings uncritically. Or, to put it the other way round, not all reflections on experience are accurate and reliable, neither are all contributions by biblical scholars, but it would be foolish to dismiss such contributions whenever they do not fit our preconceptions of what Scripture says.