BlakeHuggins.com

Part I | Part II | Part III

Let me apologize up front. This has been a horrible attempt at a blog series. I guess it started well, but other things have happened (like Christmas, New Year’s…) and I haven’t had the time to write the last part of the series. So now, here we are a month later and I haven’t finished. What’s really bad is with all the holiday traveling and whatnot, I’ve kind of lost my train of thought. But I need to wrap things up, so here we go.

In the three preceding parts, I made an attempt to articulate my view of the bible. To summarize, I said that I believe we need a view of scripture that transcends the traditional, conventional view in which historicity and (t)ruth are inextricably linked because that view poses several problems. First and most obvious is the fact that modern science, medicine, cosmology, etc. completely fly in the face of many of the claims in the bible. As people living in today’s world some of us just can’t bring ourselves to believe some of those unreasonable things. Second and more importantly, to focus too much on historicity, indeed to reduce (t)ruth to be synonymous with historicity is to miss the larger question. Again, I would use the example brought up in the comments in part I of this series. Instead of preoccupying ourselves with questions like “Was there really, literally an actual historical man named Adam or a woman named Eve?” (from which all questions concerning scripture from the traditional/conventional vantage point are rooted and derived in my opinion) perhaps we should ask “What sort of experience did these pre-modern persons have that caused them to write this particular story in this particular way? And how can we learn more about ultimate reality through this story?” These questions do not hinge upon historicity, but they are deeply penetrating and provocative nonetheless (indeed, even more penetrating and provocative than the previous questions) . Ultimately, I believe we need to trade our set of questions concerning literalism and historicity for a set of questions concerning (t)ruth and mytho-poetic symbolism; we need a hermeneutics of generosity and post-naiveté re-affirmation a higher and deeper level of consciousness that not only rejects the ignorance of pre-modern blindness, but also the arrogance of modern criticism. We need a postmodern methodology that trancends both of these.

Now, critics of this view will be quick to point out that this is can be a very slippery slope ultimately leading us down into the evil valley of subjectivity and relativism. How do you interpret the bible if every word cannot be taken literally they might ask. What is your standard if you cannot accept The Standard of Gawd’s Word? What gives?

I would gladly welcome and embrace such questions. Actually, I would propose 4 rules of measure with an overarching lens of interpretation. My own personal trajectory emerges from the United Methodist tradition. As such, I am compelled to employ what is known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, with some nuance. This quadrilateral consists of scripture, reason, tradition, and experience. Now, lots of people get really hung up on the interplay between these four, which one should be primary and which ones should be emphasized over others. Most people, although they have adopted the “quadrilateral language” are still enmeshed within the aforementioned view of literalism and conventionalism. They would argue that scripture of course is primary and that the other three, when standing in direct, literal contradiction with scripture should be subordinated to it.

Now we’ve just taken two steps back. This does me absolutely no good whatsoever. Those that hold this position are preoccupied with the same naiveté I mentioned earlier, they’re only disguising and camouflaging it with certain set of words.

Instead I would like to treat this quadrilateral like…well…like a quadrilateral–all sides receiving the same amount of attention. I had one professor described it to me like this. Each “point” of the quadrilateral could be described as a base (lst base, second base, and so on all the back to home plate). The point isn’t to leave yourself isolated on a particular base, it is to score runs; and the more you round all the bases, the more runs you score.

So I guess what I’m arguing for here is a larger theological method wherein I use scripture, reason, tradition and experience (both collective and individual) to arrive at conclusions and questions. Again, I have a great amount of respect for the bible. I learn something new each time and open its pages. And more often than not, it reads me, not vice versa.

But I do not worship it. I can’t bring myself to believe that it is infallible, inerrant, literal, whatever. I believe it is a record of ancient, pre-modern people’s experience of God and thus a record of God’s ongoing liberative and redemptive action within the narrative of history. But it’s not a history book, or a science book, or a strict rule book for that matter. It’s a narrative, a story. And the better, deeper and more penetrating question to ask, I think, is where do I find myself in this story?

Now for the interpretive lens. If I sat around by myself with scripture, reason, tradition, and experience I could probably come up with some really messed up theological suppositions. In fact, I know I would. I would need some accountability. That is why it is imperative that there be a community. All of this must be guided by the community. This quadrilateral cannot exist outside the community. To keep with the baseball allegory, as Tony Jones and others have suggested, the community could be seen as the umpire. The community calls the strikes. The community is the hub of authority so crazies like myself can’t go completely hog wild. The community guides the use of this quadrilateral and the navigation of the narrative of God. Furthermore, the community helps and guides individuals as they find their own trajectories and their own places within the story of God, becoming faithful partners with God participating in God’s liberative, transformative, and restorative action in history for the entire cosmos.

To me–that is the meaning of the bible.

~bh ><>