Last week I went to a public lecture in Cambridge, where Wayne Grudem spoke about “the perspicuity [clarity] of scripture”. I entered it with openness, but in the end found myself unpersuaded by his overall point: His main point was that Scripture has an inherent quality of clarity on all the issues about which it speaks – such that when it is studied in a spirit of prayerful dependence and with appropriate tools, its (one) meaning can be accessed.
Now, Grudem is a smart guy – he has a PhD in New Testament (1 Corinthians, no less!) from Cambridge. But to be honest, he came across more as a concerned pastor wanting to assure the flock than as a rigorous scholar. Perhaps he would even agree with that. I found his tone warm and humble – but I worried that he was so oversimplifying the issues that in fact it would eventually prove counter-productive for those he wanted to assure.
I decided to interact with him about it in question time (although I very rarely ask questions in question time!!). I’ll give the gist of it here – not in order to ridicule – but in order to continue to think about the things we discussed:
MM: When I read in the prophets, “Out of Egypt I called my son”, I don’t get the “one clear meaning” that Matthew the Gospel-writer gets.
WG: Yes – there’s a way in which it’s about Israel, and then about Jesus
MM: So when I read it in the Old Testament, should I take the “one” meaning to be about Israel or about Jesus?
WG: Well there is a sense in which it’s about both…
MM: So could we conclude that there might be multiple meanings to validly draw from a text?
WG: [pause]… There is a richness to the meaning…
I just wasn’t comfortable with him writing off “postmodern hermeneutics” in a few sentences, and assuring the audience that, even without knowledge of extrabiblical materials, it is possible to arrive at the single, clear intended meaning of every part of scripture. I don’t think that this is the historic doctrine of the perspicuity of scripture, and I worry that it’s setting people up for disillusionment.
Matt, good thoughts! Especially the counter-productive response. Grudem’s position is very far from the classic doctrine of Scripture’s perspicuity (why use clarity when one can say “perspicuity”–esp. for clarity’s sake!). Grudem’s position smacks more of classic fundamentalism where people are ready to divide over the trivial.
It doesn’t help when Protestants know nothing of church history from 500AD-1500AD, as if no-one read the Bible in between. Historical theology shows how one text can be read in many many ways, which each seems “clear” the various readers. Hence, the critical importance of listening to different points of view from different eras and cultures.
It seems to me that the classic doctrine of clarity a la the reformers is that anyone can arrive at a knowledge of *salvation* when one reads the Scriptures for oneself, but not all is scripture is clear. That’s why God raises up teachers!
I would say that if we need second temple Jewish literature to establish fundamental doctrines then this is contrary to the clarity of Scripture. However, to say that we can arrive at the right answer all the time without it … well that denies the humanity of Scripture with an overemphasis on the divine (fundamentalism).
Yep – must agree, particularly on the importance of hearing from different eras & cultures.
The specific issue that raised the question of extrabiblical literature was the “spirits in prison” of 1 Peter – Grudem said that any interpretation of the 1 Peter passage that relies on an understanding of 1 Enoch must be ruled out from the beginning – because such a need for secondary literature would contradict the inherent clarity of Scripture itself.
Did Dr. Grudem use any Biblical texts to support his claims? I here a lot a strong conservatives argue that the Bible itself teaches the “perspicuity of Scripture” but have never heard them actually refer to a text, it always seems to be to some philosophy of theology of the Bible.
Matthew, he eventually agrees with you: “There is richness to the meaning.”
I take this as a concession (great text, by the way).
This particular articulation of the perspicuity of Scripture is a philosophy that its adherents embrace before they ever approach the biblical text. There is no explicit reference that makes such a radical claim, a claim which they have made nigh unfalsifiable. This is the danger inherent is our systems of beliefs and written creeds. If we do now continually allow them to be molded and shaped by the biblical text, we become idolaters of our own intellect. For this reason, we must be especially wary of the philosophies we bring to the text. We cannot approach the text without them, but that does not mean that these philosophies will always yield reliable results.
Matthew Malcolm vs Wayne Grudem on the Perspicuity of Scripture…
I live for good theological and biblical discussions. And I especially love it when the underdog shows up the sure favorite.
An exchange between Matthew Malcolm (MM), Crypto-theology blogger, and prof Wayne Grudem (WG) fits the bill:
Let me set the st…
Thanks for your thoughts, people…
I don’t actually recall whether he appealed to particular passages of Scripture to make his central point – but yes, I agree that in the end it is a grid through which he views Scripture – and such grids are inevitable – but in my view this particular one strains to fit the Bible itself or current understandings of hermeneutics.
Grudem was quite open that his view is not in keeping with, for one example, the Westminster Confession of Faith: The Westminster Confession of Faith presents the “perspicuity of scripture” as meaning that the Bible is clear on matters pertaining to SALVATION. Grudem wanted to extend this clarity to ALL MATTERS about which the Bible speaks. (Mind you, one could argue about what “matters pertaining to salvation” means…)
I think you’re right, TC, that in the end, Grudem had to concede that things are not as black & white as his talk had implied.
I don’t, of course, mean that everything is fuzzy and nothing in the Bible can be understood – just that it is unhelpful to force post-enlightenment concepts of “clarity” and “single meaning” onto an unsuspecting biblical text!
Ironically though, what Grudem is saying sounds remarkably similar to what certain people at WTS were accusing Peter Enns of not believing. For them, it came down to WCF 1.9 which, if memory serves me correctly, reads “The infallible rule of interpreting Scripture is Scripture.” They were contending that Enns cannot appeal to Second Temple hermeneutics to explain how, for example, Matthew interprets Old Testament texts. (Ridiculous, I know!)
I am very glad that I grew up in a tradition that rejects written creeds. Their position is naive and unwritten (or unrecognized) creeds are a different kind of beast that bring their own complications to the table. But I prefer the challenge of working with unwritten creeds to the challenge of operating within written creeds. For example, it allows the scholars of our tradition the freedom to do their scholarship without worrying about people accusing them of falling outside the bounds of a particular confession which, in the end, must also be interpreted.
When one of our Universities debated years ago whether they should start a graduate school dedicated to biblical studies, they were forced to address an unwritten confession popular in our tradition that sounds remarkably like what Grudem was saying: “Even the farmer can pick up his Bible and understand it.” They argued that if this was true (which, to my knowledge, no one questioned the “if”), then a graduate school would suggest that this was no longer true. Thankfully, they eventually started the school. One reason I suspect they were able to arrive at this decision was because their creedal belief was unwritten.
Unfortunately, I am starting to see some in our tradition moving away from unwritten creeds. There is one very conservative unaccredited school which even boasts that they have a particular “Statement of Faith” sign by every faculty member and on file. This school would be one that condemns “denominations” for having creeds. “Woe to you, hypocrites…”
Their position is naive and unwritten (or unrecognized) creeds are a different kind of beast that bring their own complications to the table.
That looks to me like it’s now a written creed …
my suspiscion is that underlying Grudem’s position is his wanting to defend his approach to Bible translation (ESV is the best possible one we have) and his position against women in ministry (no women pastors/elders). Without his definition of
“perpescuity” his positions fall apart. At least, that is how I see it.
I don’t, of course, mean that everything is fuzzy and nothing in the Bible can be understood – just that it is unhelpful to force post-enlightenment concepts of “clarity” and “single meaning” onto an unsuspecting biblical text!
Now we’re talking. That’s why we have those of the Emergent community and so on. They are distrustful of the old hermeneutics, that apparently Grudem represents.
Brian, I hope not, for that would be irresponsible scholarship on Grudem’s part.
But it wouldn’t be surprising either…
Great job Matthew. I found out about this on TC’s blog and I said there:
He is in an impossible conundrum, which really dates back to Luther:
1) The bible is clear and easy to understand
2) The long complex creeds are correct
3) The bible is the sole source of authority
Pick any 2.
[...] (HT: New Leaven & Crypto-theology) [...]
In volume two of his Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics is a helpful corrective to Grudem’s view in that it takes the historical approach highlighted by Marty above. Grudem does not represent the “old hermeneutics” (TC), Muller notes that in reality there is no hard and fast line between the exegesis of the Reformers and some critical methods, take Calvin’s view on accomodation for example.
I too was at the Grudem lecture but lacked Malcolm’s speed of thought to ask questions. The one that I would have liked to ask had I been quickert related to the first set of points made by Wayne. He asserted that scripture was clear but not… and there followed 6 or 7 qualifications. Later Wayne rejected postmodern approaches to scripture. My problem was that if the qualifications made by Wayne are taken seriously, there is an argument that he is taking a postmodern route, albeit a fairly restrained version. But he rejects postmodern approaches. So perhaps these qualifications are not really operative in his actual practice but function merely to cover his butt when pressed on particulars. If this is the case, then what we have is a modernist approach which resists criticism from postmoderns by making concessions in theory but no concession in practice. Wayne may be innocent of this charge but I do feel that others are not.
Richard: That’s an interesting insight. It’s such a pity that too often Christians can be so suspicious of the “critical” or the “post-modern” that we back ourselves (and our reading of history) into a teeny corner.
Timothy: I have a vague recollection that Mike Bird had a related reaction – wondering if Grudem’s version of perspicuity dies the death of a thousand qualifications when the theory becomes practice
[...] understand and still disagree with (the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, itself one of the least self-evident teachings of the Reformation, is, at heart, the doctrine that the Bible obviously teaches [...]