Interview with Justin Holcomb about Christian Theologies of Scripture

This is my conversation with Justin Holcomb, the editor of Christian Theologies of Scripture, which came out three weeks ago. Holcomb is a lecturer in Religious Studies and Sociology at the University of Virginia, earned his PhD from Emory, and before that earned two master’s degrees at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando.
---------------------

GL: Why a book on Christian theologies of Scripture? What made you think this would be a good idea?

JH: I was really curious about what major theologians in the Christian tradition believed and taught about the Bible. The bible is called “the Word of God,” authoritative, and a revelation from God. I wanted to know what those phrases meant and I thought looking at the major thinkers of the Christian faith would be helpful in that pursuit. 

Also, I thought it was interesting that Christianity is known as a “religion of the Book.” That makes sense since Christians believe the Bible is an indispensable, reliable, and authoritative means of knowing about Jesus. But Christianity also focuses its attention on Jesus Christ and the belief that he reveals God to humanity. Jesus is more than just the main character in some Bible stories. So, I wanted to think through how Jesus being the word of God relates to the Bible as the word of God.

I thought of this book when I was a doctoral student at Emory University. There were two main interests on which I focused my attention: comparative sacred texts and the history of Christian thought. I was studying what Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists had thought and said about their sacred texts, and this sparked my curiosity about my own tradition. To answer the question “What do I believe about scripture?” I wanted to know what fellows Christians over the centuries have said about the Bible.

GL: Who are the target audiences for this book? Besides the obvious answer, “Everybody,” who do you hope reads this book?

JH: There are a few audiences I had in mind when preparing this book. My main target audience includes Bible college and seminary professors, students, pastors, and those in the Christian community who understand their identity to be shaped in some sense by scripture. I wanted to produce a volume that my professors would find interesting and that my friends, who did not go to seminary, would enjoy reading. The reviews and comments about the book so far are that it is clear and concise and appeals to a wide audience.

I didn’t envision an audience outside the Christian tradition, but Christian Theologies of Scripture as become a part of the current conversation about the nature and authority of the Bible that was sparked by recent bestsellers (The DaVinci Code, Misquoting Jesus, The Jesus Papers, and The Gospel of Judas). The questions and confusion about the Bible are swirling in contemporary conversations. And while my book doesn’t answer all the questions about the origin of the Bible or present a definitive doctrine of scripture, it does provide a map of the main Christian views about scripture.

GL: Two questions about how we understand Scripture. First, how would you characterize the view of Scripture that contemporary American evangelicals believe?

JH: Let me offer a summary statement on scripture with which I think most evangelicals would agree: “The Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are the authoritative Word of God, divinely inspired and written in the words of humans. The Bible is entirely trustworthy and is the final authority in everything it teaches.”

Evangelicals would say that the Bible is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), meaning that the Bible has divine origins and was written by human authors. The human authors were not transcribers who simply copied what they heard from God. Nor were the authors generally “inspired” or “moved” the way someone may be “moved” to write poem or a novel. The evangelical belief about inspiration teaches that the Holy Spirit guided the human authors so that what they wrote was from the mind of God, recorded without error, and accurate. This leads to the next point that evangelicals believe about the Bible.

Most evangelicals would call the Bible inerrant, meaning that the Bible is free from error and untruths and that the Bible does not misrepresent the facts. In short, the Bible is trustworthy. However, inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts (which we don’t have). This means that no present copy of scripture, no matter how accurate, can be called inerrant.

If the Bible is inspired by God and inerrant in all it teaching, evangelicals would also say that the Bible is authoritative in all it teaches, meaning in matters of faith, ethics, life, and the world. While there are additional sources for our thoughts about our faith—experience, reason, and tradition—evangelicals would say that scripture is the final authority above all others.

Sorry, that wasn’t terribly brief. But I think I hit all the main points.

GL: Second, given the view or views on Scripture that contemporary evangelicals hold, what do you think would be 1) most surprising to them and 2) most helpful to them vis-à-vis the church fathers, the Reformation, etc.? I.e., what could evangelicals learn from the chapters in your book?

JH: I think evangelicals would be surprised by the same thing that surprised me: that almost every major theologian discusses the relationship between “the Word” becoming human flesh (incarnation) and “the Word” becoming human words (scripture). I was surprised at how central Jesus was in the various theologies of scripture over the past 2,000 years. As Christians we say Jesus is the “word of God” (John 1) and scripture is the “word of God,” but this should not guide us into thinking that Christianity is focused on the Bible, rather than the Incarnation, as the primary form of revelation. From my experience, evangelicals have a tendency to make the Bible central to their belief.

Regarding this, there are two extremes to avoid. One extreme is to focus solely on Christ and treat scripture just like any other “classic text” but not to treat it as if it were the authoritative word from God. The other is to focus some much on the Bible as God’s divine inerrant word and treat Jesus as simply a character in a small part of the texts.

From the Christian point of view, Jesus is the message—God participating in human life, coming near to us, and bringing his good news. Jesus is not just the main person in one of many events in the story of God’s people. Jesus is the final revelation in God’s drama of redemption. According to the Christian tradition, Jesus is God’s ultimate word about human life and the Bible is God’s word about God’s self-revelation through human life. I think this is what Christian theologians have been saying in various ways throughout the tradition.

What I think would be most helpful for evangelicals is to realize that, for the most part, what they believe about the Bible is very similar to what the major Christian theologians have said for the past 2,000 years. Evangelicals are not weird for thinking the Bible is trustworthy, inspired by God, and authoritative in its teachings. While the past theologians may have used different terms and emphasized different points, they all discuss the authority, nature, inspiration, and interpretation of scripture in ways that are familiar to evangelicals.

GL: So, who and what will we read about in Christian Theologies of Scripture?

JH: The book looks at these major theologians: Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Catholic theologians during the Counter-Reformation, Schleiermacher, Barth, Hans Frei, and von Balthasar. The book ends with four chapters that look at important themes: scripture and tradition, the Bible and feminism and sexuality, the Bible and the African-American Christian tradition, and postmodernism and scripture.

GL: What is your book about? Why do you think understanding Christian views of the Bible is important?

JH: Christian Theologies of Scripture looks at major figures in the Christian tradition and describes their unique contributions to the lingering and overarching question: What is scripture? I got some of the best scholars around to write chapters on what main thinkers in the Christian tradition thought, believed, and said about he Bible.

I think the book is important because in our contemporary conversations about scripture we do not need to start over with our thoughts on scripture because we have so much in the past 2000 years on which to lean. There is no need to commit (as CS Lewis phrased it) “chronological snobbery,” which is arrogantly ignoring the past and refusing to look back because it is believed that little or nothing can be learned from “back then.” Sure, our questions now are different from Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Barth. But, the theologians from then have given us categories and a vocabulary to use, concepts to ponder, and conversations and thoughts about scripture that we should continue. We can stand on the shoulders of these giants in our contemporary conversations about scripture…but we need to know what they said.

Christian theology is called upon to read the signs of the times, trace the shifts, and engage in the conversation about our sacred text. In Cities of God, Graham Ward claimed that Christian should constantly ask “What time is this in which we stand?” To ask what time it is is to engage in analysis and assessment of a specific cultural situation. To ask what time it is is to repeat and re-articulate the Christian tradition’s beliefs about scripture for those involved in the current conversation about the bible. To ask what time it is is to notice that we need to answer the question: “What is Scripture?”.

Comments

[Vicky]

I'm very much interested in this issue of scriptural interpretation--will go find a copy of Justin Holcomb's book. Am particularly interested by Justin's comment that "As Christians we say Jesus is the “word of God” (John 1) and scripture is the “word of God,” but this should not guide us into thinking that Christianity is focused on the Bible, rather than the Incarnation, as the primary form of revelation. From my experience, evangelicals have a tendency to make the Bible central to their belief." For a believer like me, who has problems with inerrancy as a concept (due to the disappearance of original texts, and the changes made over centuries), this rings true. I like to keep thinking about the role of scripture, and probing the boundaries in my Christian walk. Also," Regarding this, there are two extremes to avoid--" as Justin implies, there is a solid median ground Christians can occupy, in which we keep Jesus central, yet don't displace scripture in its role.

Do you think there's a slippery slope inherent in letting go of strict inerrancy? I think that may be what frightens some Christians in discussing the role of Scripture.

Great interview--thanks, Glenn.

Vicky

[Justin]

Vicky,
I'd like to hear your thoughts after you read the volume. I don't think there is a slippery slop inherent in letting go of strict inerrancy. First, I'm not a big fan of slippery slope arguments. I'm sure there is some validaity to them in general, but they seem kind of manufactured to me. Also, sure, we need to be aware of implications of our beliefs but pursuing the truth isn't alwasy pretty either. Second, I like the concept of inerrancy as defined by the Chicago statement on Inerrancy (1978) because it says what the concept is and is not. It lists 19 affirmations and denials....and mainly I like the denials because they help qualify what inerrancy doesn't mean. I don't really like the "word" inerrancy because it defines the nature and authroity of the bible negatively. I'd rather say that teh bible is trustworthy and doesn't misrepresent the facts. Third, (and this is not really related to you inerrancy question) I think the incarnation (God becoming human in the person of Jesus) has been brushed aside for bibliolatry in some evangelical circles.
J