Part 2: Christendom and Biblical Interpretation

C. Reformation and Biblical Interpretation

This was the situation, both politically and theologically, that faced the Reformers in the sixteenth century. During the past millennium and more, despite the advances in biblical understanding resulting from the work of generations of biblical interpreters and theologians, the Christendom mindset was essentially unchanged and the Bible was still interpreted in ways that supported a supposedly Christian status quo. There had been protests, especially from marginal movements like the Waldensians in France and the Lollards in England, and more recently from the Hussites in Bohemia, who were critical both of the methods used and the conclusions reached by mainline interpreters. In particular, they were concerned about the way Jesus seemed to have been marginalized. Dissent on the important issue of biblical interpretation was dangerous and was quickly quelled, but memories of this alternative legacy lived on.

Some radical movements began simply as attempts to take Jesus seriously and to practise what he taught. The Jesus these groups discovered as they read the Gospels challenged them personally, especially in relation to issues of lifestyle, and also seemed to point to incongruities in the emphases and practices of contemporary church life. The Sermon on the Mount, particularly, seemed to inculcate values and attitudes that were not evident in the churches or their leaders. It also appeared to forbid certain practices that were strongly endorsed by the churches: in particular, participation in killing and the swearing of oaths. And many traditional beliefs and ceremonies seemed to have no basis in the teaching of Jesus: purgatory, infant baptism and praying to the saints, to mention but a few.

The beginning of the Waldensian movement in the conversion experience of Valdes, a businessman from Lyons, is a classic example of this. Though there are several stories told about his conversion, reading the Gospels appears to have been a very significant component. Valdes' reaction, which was by no means unique in the Middle Ages, was to take literally Jesus' words about giving to the poor and preaching the gospel. His starting point was not theological doctrine, nor criticism of the established church, but a rediscovery of the teaching of Jesus, which challenged his values and priorities and transformed his life. Criticism of the church and the formation of a new movement followed, reluctantly on Valdes' part, as the radical implications of Jesus' teachings were contrasted with the social standing, priorities and activities of contemporary churches. Their contemporary opponent, Sacchoni wrote: "The Waldenses despise all those approved practices of the Church, which they do not see written in the Gospel."

Jan Lochman compares the Protestant Reformation, which he calls the "second reformation", with the Waldensian and Hussite movements, which he refers to as the "first reformation". He writes: "It is the Gospels, primarily the Sermon on the Mount, which receives the greatest amount of attention. Without desiring to set up false alternatives, the somewhat simplifying statement could be made: where the second reformation concentrates its theology upon the Pauline message of justification, the first reformation concentrates upon the 'evangelical commandment' of Jesus."

If these groups began with a rediscovery of Jesus and renewed emphasis on following his teaching, other dissenting groups moved gradually towards this position as a result of reading the Bible for themselves and not allowing ecclesiastical traditions to dull its impact. Anne Hudson notes that among the Lollards, although "there is no sign of qualified acceptance only for any of the epistles, such as in the Reformation period led to the characterization of James's epistle as 'an epistle of straw'", nevertheless, "the stress upon the gospels amongst the greater length of the bible as a whole correctly reflects Wyclif's view that the core of the divine message was to be found within the four evangelists." Though he began very differently from Valdes, exploring abstruse metaphysical concepts, Wyclif's writings inspired a movement that ended up taking very similar positions to those of the Waldensians. The position of many Lollard groups on pacifism and not swearing oaths resulted from their determination to take seriously what they believed to be the teaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount.

Other principles, apart from their insistence on the centrality of Jesus, characterised these protest movements:

• Their conviction that untrained Christians could understand the Bible challenged the interpretive monopoly of priests.
  
  
• Their belief that the Bible was best understood in community challenged the individualism of much scholarship.
  
  
• Their determination to apply the Bible to their daily lives and communal practices challenged the prevailing emphasis on philosophical or mystical reflection rather than discipleship.
  
  
• Their suspicion that the Old Testament had been seriously misused to buttress a Christendom system built on wrong foundations challenged the entire system.

What about the "second reformation"? Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and their colleagues advocated a return to the biblical roots and insisted that the Bible, rather than church traditions, was authoritative. How did they handle biblical interpretation? Did they adopt similar principles to the medieval dissidents?

These Reformers seem to have moved through three stages in their opposition to the Catholic establishment.

• Initially, they criticised blatant abuses, doctrinal errors and immorality without urging schism.
  
  
• Gradually they accepted the inevitability of separation and for a while toyed with radical ideas about the nature of the church and its relationship with society (ideas not dissimilar to those of the earlier radical groups).
  
  
• Finally, having secured the support of the political authorities, they rejected these radical options and set up alternative expressions of Christendom that removed its most objectionable features but maintained the basic framework.

David Bosch concludes that among these Reformers the relationship between church and state "was redefined in a more nuanced way, yet with little fundamental difference. The old, monolithic Christendom merely gave way to different fragments of Christendom."

How did this outcome affect their approach to biblical interpretation? They introduced some important changes, but they did not challenge the Christendom mindset that had dominated biblical interpretation for centuries.

• By rejecting the monastic option, they removed the earlier two-tier approach to discipleship, but they did not reassert New Testament teaching as the standard.
  
  
• By emphasising justification by faith they focused attention on the New Testament and on Jesus as redeemer, but they would not allow Jesus to be normative for ethics as well as soteriology.
  
  
• Though they insisted on the freedom of biblical interpretation from the scrutiny of ecclesiastical or political authorities, in practice they frequently deferred to these authorities.

The Reformers continued to operate with a "hermeneutic of order." This term is used by liberation theologians in Latin America and contrasted unfavourably with what they call a "hermeneutic of justice." José Miguez Bonino wrote: "If we accept this hermeneutical key for an understanding of the theological determination of priorities, then the question of the Constantinian church has to be turned completely around. The true question is not 'what degree of justice...is compatible with the existing order?', but 'what kind of order, which order is compatible with the exercise of justice...?'" The Reformers' approach to the Bible was influenced (some would say distorted) by their wariness of interpretations that might threaten the social, political, ecclesiastical and economic status quo.

It was left to another marginal movement to continue and develop the tradition of the medieval dissidents. The Anabaptists came to realise that reforming the state church system was inadequate and that forming believers' churches was essential. Although the earliest Anabaptists seem to have hoped that a thorough reformation of the state churches might be achieved, they were soon disillusioned. As they reflected on this, they seem to have arrived quite quickly at the conclusion that the "fall" of the church at the time of Constantine was the chief issue, with infant baptism as its symbol. Although one of their leaders, Balthasar Hubmaier, continued to operate for a while within a state church context, this was unusual among Anabaptists. The disaster at Münster, where a group of Anabaptists tried to impose its views on a whole city and were eventually massacred, seems to have removed all further toying with such options among Anabaptists.

By then, they had comprehensively rejected Christendom and its symbols. This radical stance enabled them to interpret Scripture in new ways.

• They too rejected two-tier Christianity with different standards and callings for different Christians, but, unlike the Reformers, Anabaptists chose to apply New Testament standards to all Christians. Instead of a two-tier Christendom, they argued that for Christians Jesus was the norm for ethics as well as for salvation. The Old Testament might still be relevant within society, but within believers' churches the New Testament governed ecclesiology and ethics.
  
  
• And New Testament teachings were to be obeyed whatever their social implications. Many Anabaptists rejected interpretations of Romans 13 that seemed to require excessive deference to the political authorities and operated not with a hermeneutics of order but with a "hermeneutics of obedience."
  
  
• Unlike the Reformers, they were not in a dominant position. Although they were persecuted by others who claimed to be Christians, rather than by an avowedly pagan empire, Anabaptists regarded persecution as incompatible with true Christianity and so saw their experience as analogous to the early Christians: the true church was always liable to such treatment, whatever the lineaments of the persecutors. Their approach to Scripture resembled the approaches of pre- Christendom and persecuted medieval dissident interpreters more than those of the Reformers or most interpreters since Constantine.
  
  
• A key element in Anabaptist hermeneutics was its enfranchisement of all believers as interpreters and its insistence that the Bible should be interpreted in the local Christian community. Their confident assertion that Scripture was self-interpreting inspired those who had been intimidated by scholarly and ecclesiastical authority and who were struggling to respond to their new freedom in a less hierarchical setting.
  

Next - Biblical Interpretation in Post-Christendom >>