Reformed Exegesis and Christian Discourse

A Confessional Hermeneutic 1

Let's begin by admitting that we cannot do detailed exegetical work in sermons or on every page of a popular book; it would kill the enterprise. But neither can we avoid it because Scripture is our only authority for saying anything. Quality-work done in the study under-girds the work of the pulpit and literature as the only way of validating our conclusions. It goes without saying that filling a sermon or book with textual references while ignoring exegetical rigour and reformed theological parameters does little more than create an illusion of faithfulness. A sound hermeneutic for this writer is the Confessional hermeneutic of Westminster.

William Evans reminds us that confessions are the product of their age and are normative for the communities that produce and interpret them. Exegeting the Confession might be thought to be less exacting than exegeting Scripture. Not so, he tells us, for the problems are the same. For instance, we cannot get back to the original authors' intent and therefore must make of it what we can. We have to 'contextualize' the Confession. This has implications for how we understand subscription and the taking of exceptions.

If the Confession really is the product of the believing community, we might reasonably anticipate that exceptions will be few, not many, minor not major and public not private. If we cannot proceed in the confidence that the men of Westminster said what they meant and meant what they said, we can proceed nowhere at all. Acknowledging the essential difference between inspired an uninspired writings, we must yet affirm that no doctrine of the Confession is of any private interpretation. In the words of Charles Hodge, 'It is no less plain that the candidate has no right to put his own sense upon the words propounded to him. He has no right to select from all possible meanings which the words may bear, that particular sense which suits his purpose.'2 As for revision, unless we (the church) have compelling scriptural reasons for for change, the confession should remain intact as the public statement of faith and practice to which we are bound to subscribe.

In it application to Christian discourse the confession sets the hermeneutical parameters. The interpretive method is set down in the Confession. If subscription is at all meaningful, we should not fear theological parameters but be thankful for them. Nor should we feel the need to break the mould or kick over the traces, whether in the interests of semper reformandum or as a reaction to the anachronistic charge that the Assembly failed to address today's issues. The Confession is 'dated', we know that, but not essentially, otherwise it could have little relevance. What is might be 'guilty' of is by omission not commission, which leaves little need for revision. As a comprehensive and systematic summary of biblical doctrine it sets forth 'supracultural’ truth with great clarity, laying down timeless principles especially relevant to the interpretation of scripture, which is what this article is really about. So while revision is always possible3 the truth summarised and set forth represents both the irreducible deposit and the safe environment in which to carry out exegetical exploration.

A confessional hermeneutic for our purpose therefore, is not primarily about interpreting the confession but about interpreting scripture. It has to do with how we get out of scripture what is in it. The hermeneutic of 'reformed' preaching and literature must necessarily resemble the hermeneutic of the standards in its employment of the principle of scripture being its own interpreter. At a time when it is de rigeur to come at the biblical text from a point on the outside, the proposition that 'The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself...' draws us back to what is fundamental and essential. Whatever the possible insights of Literary Theory, Social Anthropology, Second Temple Judaism, Discourse Analysis and other disciplines, none constitutes the key to getting out of scripture what is in it.

It goes without saying that this does not remove the necessity of appropriate principles and methods. Where there is a question about the true and full sense of scripture, we employ as our basic tool the analogy of faith so that what is 'not alike clear' 'may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.' This is simple but emphatically not simplistic. Comparing texts requires discernment of their doctrinal content and didactic import, which is why we call it the analogy of faith. It is more than a simple comparison of texts. Rather we have to exegete texts in order to know that they are truly comparable as opposed to being superficially similar.

Additionally, when texts do not speak directly to a point, we apply the principle of necessary and justifiable inference: 'The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.' The Westminster Assembly took great care to safeguard the method so as to avoid superficial exegesis based on false comparisons and eisegesis issuing from the use of strange and unbiblical hermeneutical grids.

Yet in all this there is room for exegetical disagreement. The Assembly, which was not a hermeneutical monolith, admitted that all places in scripture are not alike plain. Variations of understanding may occur but reassuringly, always within the boundaries of the system of doctrine agreed by the church and set forth in the confession. A confessional hermeneutic provides a necessary, if not infallible, safeguard against exegetical, hermeneutical and doctrinal aberration and provides a safe environment for exploration and discussion about the meaning of texts.

Successful exegesis is not a matter of intuition. Students learning to exegete are often unaware of their hermeneutical baggage and fail to recognise the difference between themselves and the text. Consequently they read their own experience or that of others into it. Distanciation helps us come to grips with our personal hermeneutical predispositions. Eisegesis or reading meaning into the text goes hand in hand with failure to recognise personal interpretive baggage and a predilection for superficial comparison. The idea that because texts are similar-looking or sounding they necessarily speak to the same point is simplistic. These weaknesses, which are neither truly exegetical nor reformed, may combine to create an illusion of understanding but in reality are the consequence of distracting influences and presuppositions. A certain facility and ease of movement in the handling texts can be mistaken for spiritual illumination. Yet the idea that not having to work hard with the text equals inspired insight probably has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit and everything to do with an ability to elevate the incidental to a position of first importance – the genesis of heresy!

In the words of the Westminster Directory For the Public Worship of God, what matters is that we 'insist upon those doctrines which are principally intended.' In order to do this we must get out of the text what it says (author's intention) in a way consistent with the nature, character, content and context of scripture itself. This was the conviction of the reformers and their successors. According to The Second Helvetic Confession 'we hold that interpretation of the Scripture to be orthodox and genuine which is gleaned from the Scriptures themselves (from the nature of the language in which they were written, likewise according to the circumstances in which they were set down, and expounded in the light of like and unlike passages and of many and clearer passages) which agrees with the rule of faith and life, and contributes much to the glory of and man's salvation.' (Ch. 20.5.010)

---

1 The following are reflections drawn from a paper entitled Discoursing Like Paul, presented at the annual officers’ conference of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England and Wales’, September 2011.  As such they are little more than introductory.
2 http://www.reformation21.org/blog/william-b-evans/owards a Confessional Hermeneutic: Some Suggestions

3 (The minister’s Vows and the Confession of Faith: http://continuing.wordpress.com/tag/charles-hodge/)

4 For example the adjustments to Articles 23  et al in American editions.

The Escondido Theology by John Frame

Just started reading it. What a pity about the personal stuff. Knowing an author's motives is not always a help, just another barrier to get past in trying to appreciate the arguments.

A weighty service

According to The Directory for the Public Worship of God, the spoken ministry is a ‘weighty service’. In the words of the Lager Catechism it is to be undertaken painfully, plainly, faithfully, wisely, gravely, with loving affection and as taught of God; never in a spirit of self-confidence.[1] Dabney, in his lectures on sacred rhetoric, states that ‘rhetorical discourse should deal not only with the intellect (to produce mental conviction) but also with the affections to direct the motives’,[2] which is to say that ministerial discourse is a ‘hearts and mind’ enterprise demanding clear proclamation and persuasive application. This adds up not only to a weighty task but also to a demand that we appraise our office and function as preachers appropriately. I suppose none of us escapes ‘the morning after the night before’ experience when it comes to reflecting on how well are badly we fared in the pulpit on the Lord’s Day. At the very least, as I’m sure we will agree, our written report from the school of Christ will invariably include 'could do better’.

It is no bad thing to feel that weight. Properly estimated, ministers have no intrinsic value. What distinguishes them from other church members are the gift and call of God and the growth in grace and knowledge requisite in those who preach. But at the end of the day, we are but clay pots in which God has deposited his gospel treasure that the excellence of the power might be of him, not us. Calvin writes ‘Those that intrude themselves confidently [into the ministry], and in a spirit much elated, or who discharge the ministry of the word with an easy mind, as though they were equal to the task, are ignorant at once of themselves and of the task.’[3]The Directory recognizes that ‘the minister of Christ is in some good measure gifted’, which is what sets him apart from his fellows but never so much that there is no room for improvement. In fact, it recommends that a minister ‘improve [his gift] in his private preparations before he deliver in public what he hath provided’, which accords with the aim of this paper. Improvement is always desirable, even necessary but always within the bounds of what Scripture means by preaching. We are not showmen, just preachers, not authority figures, just ministers, not out to serve ourselves but to be the church’s servants for Christ’s sake. 

A humble and grave approach is what Paul advocated. In 2 Cor. 4:1 he writes ‘men ought to regard us Christ’s servants’ and in 4:5, he adds ‘we are your servants for Christ’s sake. It is a ‘servant ministry’, though today, even that expression has been high-jacked by men with a much wider agenda. Actually, throughout its history, the church has been plagued by men and women more committed to making a name for themselves than lifting up Christ.  Paul’s warning to the Ephesian elders has always been timely,[4] not least in our own time when we are assailed by self-appointed preachers & teachers, many without training and accountable to no one. Some even, who went through a training and appointment process, manage to turn the ministry to their own advantage, which brings me back to weightiness of the ministry and the need to improve.

Paul, it is clear, had not the remotest interest in ‘performance’ despite his reported discourses being delivered ‘off the cuff’ so to speak and his being ‘ready’. Although he never attended seminary and never learned homiletics, he was well trained. He met the risen Christ, from whom he received certain truths which he passed on, he made early contact other disciples and the apostles, spent time in Arabia and was part of the ‘ministry team’ of the church at Syrian Antioch.  My point is that, even as an inspired preacher, one taught by the Spirit, he had ‘studied’ the disciplines, gained a thorough acquaintance with the Scriptures, learned how to divide them correctly and apply them passionately. In the forms in which we have them, Paul’s discourses are coherent, spiritual insightful, existentially sensitive, penetratingly logical and passionately persuasive. If anyone can help us, he can!

[1] Larger Catechism Q. 159

[2] Eloquence 233

[3] Commentary 1Cor.99

[4] Acts 20:28-29

A soldier goes to heaven

When we returned to Northern California in October 2011 I quickly became involved with a marine who had terminal cancer. It started as acute back-ache but turned out to be incurable. While on a six month tour in Iraq his life fell apart, his marriage ended and he cut loose. In one of those strange and rather wonderful providences God brought Carlos into his life. Carlos is a believer who finds it hard to believe and is  plagued by demons of the mind.  But he is a believer and he brought Daniel to church, where Daniel, a very lapsed Catholic professed faith in Christ. He ran well for a while but the demands of his paramedic course and the lure of the world eventually drew him away, but not completely. Every so often he would contact one of his former friends with a question about the Bible.

Then came the cancer and with it a return to the Lord. 'I''ve re-found my faith' he said on or first meeting. From the time he knew he had cancer, discipleship became a serious matter.  Visits were always the same; lying on the sofa, he would get his Bible, Strong's Concordance and laptop from the glass coffee table and away we would go. It was a quest for good texts, ones he could use in witnessing to his friends;  'Where does it say about God 's law being in our conscience?' Another time, I visited him in the hospital but he was too ill to talk. I made ready to leave when two of his pals turned up. 'Pastor, will you please pray?' The pals had to listen, then I left. He witnessed very clearly to his mother and one of the elders of the church testified that she prayed like a Protestant. I hope she believes like one too. He was not afraid to die.  He told the social worker from the hospice that he was going to a better place. A week ago we held the memorial. I preached on Simeon's readiness to die after seeing God's salvation in the face of Jesus Christ.  It was a good service.  The marines did their thing - very dignified. Then the veterans did theirs, five old men, one played 'taps' and the four others, who looked barely able to lift their rifles, fired three volleys, picked up the shells and gave them to Daniel's mother.. It was all over. For Daniel it all began on December twenty-sixth - the day he died.

The covenantal complexion of parables

Reading Keller's treatment of Luke 10:25-37 (Good Samaritan) and Luke 15:11-32 (Prodigal Son) I can't help feeling that he doffs the cap to biblical context and ends up worshipping at the altar of contextualization and that in his great concern to reach out he underplays the reaching in. Christ was concerned about faith and life within the covenant as exemplified by the father's love for his wayward son on the one hand, and his resentful son on the other and also by the fact that a stranger to the covenant actually demonstrated covenant love to one of the covenant people in a way that prominent members of the covenant community did not. The 'go and do likewise' is not a mandate for general social action but an urging of covenant love on one's fellow covenant members. Nor is it a command that is impossible for anyone but Christ to keep. To say that it is makes nonsense of the parable and of the command to do likewise . I understand that this cuts little ice with church growth & urban mission enthusiasts but seem to recall that it is the love Christians have for one another that makes the impression on those outside.

I have been dipping into The Urban Face of Mission (Ortiz & Baker eds, P&R) in order to revisit the spring from which Tim Keller drinks and to remind myself that this is the same current that feeds the missiological impulse. It is, of course, a sphere in which 'context is king' but not necessarily biblical context. Uppermost in this missiological hermeneutic is 'contextualization' - the various processes by which a local church integrates the Gospel message (the text) with its local culture (the context).' (Luzbetak cited by Barker, 75).

In the great hermeneutical spiral we are supposed to exegete the text and be exegeted by it. In the process of contextualization, who  or what 'exegetes' the context?  It is becoming increasingly challenging to imagine how a hermeneutic so influenced by its inter-face with cultural contexts can exegete those cultures. Sola scriptura has gone out of the window. In its place are social anthropology, demographics and others, each helping to create a hermeneutic not unlike the 'New Perspectives' with a standpoint and perspective distinctly extra-biblical and decidedly un-confessional. We live in free countries so each to his own; just don't called it 'reformed'.

Tulip for Beginners

Where have all the flowers gone – or whatever happened to TULIP?

‘Where have all the flowers gone?’ has nothing whatever to do with the song of that name! It simply introduces this short series of articles explaining central teachings of the Reformed Faith. TULIP is an acronym or short way of saying something and stands for the Five Points of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and the Perseverance of the Saints.

The Synod of Dort, a council of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands, published the Five Points of Calvinism in 1619. These points or ‘canons’ answered the five points of the Arminian Remonstrance (Protest) of 1610. Arminius and his supporters presented a watered-down version of the reformed teachings but the reformed churches saw the danger and published the Five Points. Since then there have been two camps, the Calvinists and the Arminians.

Total Depravity

When somebody says ‘I’m as good as the next person’, without even realising it, they are saying the exact opposite because the next man is not good at all. The Bible teaches that we are sinful from the inside out. In Romans 6:16, Paul talks about us being ‘slaves to sin’. In Romans 7:18 he makes the remarkable assertion that “in [our] flesh nothing good dwells: for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good, I do not find.”

The problem is that our entire constitution is so affected by sin that we cannot please God. Calvin put it like this; “According to the constitution of our nature, oil might be extracted from a stone sooner than we could perform a good work.’ (Institutes III. 14.5) How different from the utopian optimism of evolutionary thought! So deep-seated and so comprehensive is our depravity that Jeremiah said ‘the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?’ (17:9).

Don’t get it wrong, we all have a moral consciousness but that’s not the point. As Paul said, ‘to will is present with me’ but he concludes ‘the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice’ (Romans 7:19). Total Depravity is the inability of the mind, will and affections to please God. Our Confession of Faith says “By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God and so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.” (Westminster Confession of Faith. VI.II).

It’s pretty miserable isn’t it? Total Depravity puts us in our place and the important thing is that it is only when we know that we are real sinners that we will come before God in reverence, godly fear and penitence of heart. It isn’t bad to feel bad. How can we ever appreciate God’s sovereign grace in our Lord, Jesus Christ, if we do not understand our abject poverty and absolute need?

But where has Total Depravity gone? Is it in the preaching, prayers and worship of the church? Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church, San Jose, California the eighth largest congregation in the USA, has a simple answer to the question “What shall I preach this Sunday?” Preachers, he thinks, should be asking, “To whom will I be preaching?” and adds “simply thinking through the needs of the audience will help determine God’s will for the message . . . People’s immediate needs are a key to where God would have you begin speaking on that particular occasion’ (Purpose Driven Church 227).

Total Depravity helps us approach God in the right way; remove it and something else happens. On worship Warren writes “Figure out what mood you want your service to project, and then create it” (264) and again he writes, “start positive and end positive’ (271). Again he writes “we use humour in our services ... it is not a sin to help people feel good” (272) and ‘[we made] a strategic decision to stop singing hymns in [our] seeker services with the result that ‘we have attracted thousands more because of our music … Saddleback now has a complete pop/rock orchestra.’ (285). The aim, as Warren puts it, is to make “members feel special ... they need to feel special” (320,323). Well we all want to feel special, don’t we - but according to Calvin, “man’s nature … is a perpetual factory of idols” (Institutes, 1.11.8). In the words of Ecclesiastes 7:29 “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.” That’s the trouble, when depraved people start inventing worship, anything can happen! Let’s get back to the Bible and the reality of what we know when we are most honest with ourselves. It is not that we all do the same number of bad things but that the same number of bad things is wrong with us. We are totally depraved or “wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.”

Allegorizing

I recently read Tim Keller's book The Prodigal God, an exposition and application of the parable of the Good Samaritan. It is hardly possible to read anything of Keller's without being impressed by his zeal for reaching people. But it was also impossible to come away without wondering whether, in this case, the chosen text is able to bear the weight of the book and the book the weight of the text.

In search of the sensus plenior it seems, he ignores Blomberg's moderate-allegorical approach (each parable makes one main point per main character) to find significance that goes way beyond meaning. In addition to the Father, the sinners and the Pharisees we have outreach - 'the father has to go out and invite each of them to come into the feast', the messianic banquet, the cost - atonement, 'home' and other extensions like exile, alienation &, brokenness. Is that all?

Silva makes the point that much allegorical exposition arises from the need for rhetorical effect. (Has the Church Misread the Bible? TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF ALLEGORY,56 )