Christian Epistemology for Biblical Studies

To some degree, to be a scholar–to seek to understand and be productive in a particular area of thought–is to confess that one hasn’t arrived. This is the way Socrates was proved to be the wisest of all those in Athens: he knew that that he didn’t have all the answers, whereas all the people he spent his days questioning also didn’t have all the answers, but they thought that they did.

On the other hand, to be active in academic work, especially as a Christian, often requires us to commit to certain beliefs and principles (for example, a doctrinal statement). How do these two things go together: being a person who is seeking to know, and a person committed to a particular faith tradition? Here’s a couple thoughts I have on seeking the truth within a confessional (i.e. Christian) context:

1. Faith is the key that unlocks understanding of Scripture. In this way, confessionalism is a benefit, not a liability. People often focus on how confessionalism rules out of bounds some questions and interpretations. This seems like it hinders us from discovering certain things. However, what people often don’t realize is that confessionalism can be a benefit. Having a relationship with God through the gospel means that I am able to read Scripture sympathetically and therefore more likely to understand it correctly. When we start off with the belief that Scripture is trustworthy and coherent and is the word of God, we are able to hear it better because we have a “hermeneutic of love” by which we are inclined toward the text in trust and faith, rather away from the text is suspicion.
2. Knowledge is a corporate, not an individual endeavor. We cannot know without being part of a community of knowers. We build whole structures of knowledge on things that we haven’t personally investigated, because we build upon the work of others. While this doesn’t mean that we have to believe what others say without question, it does mean that a significant dimension of our work has to do with identifying with a community of knowers who share in our most fundamental assumptions. That is what it means to identify with a confessional community. In fact, there is no such thing as a community that is not “confessional” in some sense, because every community is historically situated and is rooted in certain fundamental assumptions about what is true.
   1. The individual scholar must figure out what his or her basic assumptions are so that they will be able to identify what community of faith best fits their understanding. There is no such thing as a community that is bound together by being open to every possible question. They are all defined by certain commitments as to what is good, true, and beautiful. So, for example, if someone is not sure about whether the Scripture is true, they shouldn’t expect a Bible-believing seminary to employ them so that they can do research to settle the issue. They can and should (as an individual) settle that issue. There is nothing wrong with struggling over it and working through it. However, that should be settled before taking a position, and once they have come to a position, they should be comfortable with seeing the basic commitments of the community as a foundation from which they can explore issues, not a hindrance to knowing the truth.
3. There is no such thing as freedom without responsibility. We cannot expect that others will validate some kind of absolute freedom to ask questions apart from the question of what effect those questions might have on others. This doesn’t mean that we should be brittle and fearful about asking questions. But it does mean that we recognize the significance of our questions on real life people and communities and not treat such questions as merely academic/intellectual queries.
4. Theology undergirds proper interpretation. Theology provides the foundation from which interpretation and scholarship can take place. Theology provides the big-picture narrative that gives meaning to the particularities of empirical research. The methods of historical research actually need the foundation that philosophy and theology can provide. The assumptions that guide the natural sciences cannot be provided by the sciences themselves, but must come from without. Theology also provides the plausibility structures by which historical probability can be assessed.
5. A Christian epistemology is crucial for Christian scholarship. The Christian faith claims to be the key to life. It includes a Christian way of knowing that is governed by the Word of God. The Scriptures are, as Calvin says, the spectacles by which we see all things as they truly are. Actually, if the Christian faith is right, then Christians can have true beliefs apart from empirical research. Christians can rightly believe that Jesus was raised form the dead without having witnessed it personally.
6. A Christian scholar ought to be willing to think of what constitutes the “search for truth” in Christian terms. To consider a definition of “searching for truth” that is not characteristically Christian is an unwise capitulation to non-Christian worldviews, and ignores the reality of spiritual warfare. While considering a question from such a perspective might be a legitimate step in the process, the Christian ought to follow up by bringing any results of such an inquiry into dialogue with Christian truth. It also may be profitable to use arguments apart from an appeal to Christian truth for the sake of argument when others might not share our presuppositions. However, this is different than personally accepting a conception of “seeking the truth” that is non-Christian.
7. Christian scholarship is carried out the context of spiritual warfare. In Scripture, the powers of darkness are portrayed as attempting to lead people away from faith in Christ. Unbelief, idolatry, and human autonomy are characteristic of what Satan wants from us. The war is over faith versus unbelief. We cannot think that Scholars studying the Bible are exempt from the attacks of the evil one. What great prize would Satan seek than a scholar who can cast doubt on Scripture!
8. While it is important to strive for a level of objectivity in research, the myth of objective facts that are self-interpreting is not a Christian view of truth. One step in the scholarly process is distancing oneself from presuppositions to try and see as clearly as possible. However, a second step in this process is bringing the results into dialogue with Christian truth. We should be self-critical and recognize that we can distort the data, and yet we cannot embrace a perspective other than that of a creature who is under the authority of the creator. In other words, we cannot embrace the view held by many critical scholars that we can view the data “as it is in itself” as if we don’t have a personal perspective that shapes our interpretation of it.
9. “Seeking truth” in a Christian worldview is a personal matter. A surgeon who does a life-or-death surgery on his wife performs the surgery in some ways just like he would on any other person. But in other ways, it would be wrong for him to treat her just like he would any other person. So the Christian scholar with the Bible. The scholar who is a Christian must not “bracket his beliefs” before studying the Bible.
10. We have to be aware of the personal and historical contexts to our questions. While some questions might be innocuous in and of themselves, they can have different implications when viewed in light of a person’s own story, or in light of historical context. The “Battle for the Bible” has, for better or worse, set the backdrop for questions that have implications for the authority of Scripture, and we must not be naïve to assume that such questions can be viewed apart from our current context. Furthermore, questions that relate to the trustworthiness of Scripture need to be handled sensitively in light of the potential that such questions have to weaken the faith of Christians that we are here to serve. Therefore, some questions that might not be off-limits in principle might practically be off-limits unless good reasons were found for raising them.
11. Theology and empirical research go hand in hand. The above highlights the importance of theology for interpretation. However, this does not mean that theology is unassailable. Theology must be corrected in light of the data of Scripture. The interpretation of Scripture must be corrected by historical research. Historical research must be undergirded by theology. This is nothing more than the “hermeneutical spiral.” If the Scriptures are the spectacles by which we see things rightly, general revelation also helps us understand Scripture rightly (Pratt). Both are necessary, and there is danger in separating either from the other: either imposing our theology on the text, or trying to interpret the details of historical research apart from embracing particular assumptions.
12. Conclusion: I believe in both historical and theological approach to Scripture. I get nervous about separating them. Fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding) is the model that I ultimately endorse.