From this morning’s readings:

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong… (1 Corinthians 1:18-27, RSV)

I always find this passage challenging and encouraging. I find it challenging because I am a pretty rational person, and was attracted to Catholicism because it is based on solid philosophical and theological assumptions. These verses remind us that no matter how well we explain the faith, or think we understand it, there are always going to be elements to our belief that will come across to outsiders as either scandalous or absurd or both. The crucifixion of Jesus is scandalous and absurd, by worldly standards. Modern pundits even poke fun of it. We shouldn’t be surprised, because the same happened in Paul’s day. I find this passage encouraging because it reminds us that Christ himself is God’s power and wisdom. Our faith truly is sacramental and incarnational, because it is ultimately about a person, not a system of principles. The principles, philosophy, etc, that result are based on the person of Jesus. This is why I don’t think an enlightenment-style Christianity works, because there are elements of Christianity that are foolish when analyzed from a purely rational perspective. We Catholics and Orthodox have a word for this: mystery. This is why we speak of becoming a Catholic as a type of initiation; the process is more than just learning a few principles, and giving an intellectual consent. Initiation implies partaking of a mystery that can be partially grasped, but not fully understood.

Just the other day, I was talking to a fellow teacher in the diocese, who is getting his Master’s in theology from a Catholic University. Before beginning his program, he had to take a 1 credit class introducing him to the historical-critical approach to Scripture. Basically, the professor (a priest local to my place of birth) took an approach that gave strong precedence to this critical way of looking at Scripture. This basic, introductory class apparently was setting the stage for the rest of the degree.

I don’t want to sound narrow, because I am not opposed to biblical criticism, and any engagement with the Truth is a good thing, but I wonder why the historical-critical method is given so much precedence in so many graduate schools and seminaries? I know the reasons usually given for it, but honestly I am not sure how beneficial it is for faithful people, who believe in a Jesus who is known by faith. Let’s face it. That is classical Christianity. Even those who knew Jesus in person had to have faith to believe he was who he claimed (I believe Kierkegaard said something to that effect), so even if scholars using the historical-critical method somehow proved Jesus claimed to be divine, that still doesn’t mean people, ancient or modern, will believe it. I propose that while using more common critical methods, we start using critical methods that are critical of the critical methods themselves. For example, what about “ecclesiastical criticism,” asking ourselves what the Church says about Scripture, e.g. in Church documents and writings of the Fathers. After all, Scripture came from the believing community. Is it even proper to study Scripture outside this context? Is there even a “meaning” of Scripture outside the living community that produced it? Again, the Church uses standard critical methods, so there need not be a conflict here. I am just kind of thinking out loud here.

I admit to being very hesitant about Historical Criticism, especially regarding Jesus, because I believe it is inexact. As Schweitzer observed, the reconstructions of the “historical Jesus” out there tell us more about the historian doing the research than Jesus. When scholars begin to reconstruct the “historical Jesus,” he looks a lot like they think he should look like: Marxist revolutionary, gay rights advocate, proto-hippie, etc. One reason I went to Emory for my graduate work was that Luke Johnson was there, and I think he effectively answers the Jesus Seminar and others that go wild with Historical Criticism.

Apparently the pope feels this way too. Quoting from the documents of Vatican II, the pope believes biblical scholarship is not quite proceeding as Vatican II envisioned:

“[S]ince Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written,” the Council text says, “no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith.”

The Pontiff expresses his view that in general, exegetes take into account the first principle — the unity of Scripture. But, they often neglect the second — the living tradition of the whole Church…

With such a perspective, he added, the presence of the divine in the historical disappears. The Pontiff offered the example of Germany, where certain exegetical currents deny the institution of the Eucharist or maintain that Jesus never left the tomb.

This interpretation, the Pope continued, creates a wall between exegesis and lectio divina, and causes confusion when it comes to preparing homilies.

With this perspective, Scripture cannot be “the soul of theology,” he contended, and theology ceases to be the interpretation of Scripture in the Church.

The life and mission of the Church demands overcoming such a dualism between exegesis and theology, the Holy Father affirmed. They are, rather, dimensions of the same reality.

Good for the pope. At seminary, I remember professors always dividing a wall between what we learn in class and what we will teach and preach when we get out, as if the two can ever really be separated. I give John Spong credit for one thing: he took what he learned in seminary in the 1960s, and logically ran with it. He didn’t try to do any mental gymnastics, or preach something he didn’t believe. Yes, Spong, who denies virtually every tenet of classical Christianity, has simply taken what a lot of seminary students are learning right now, and applied it to the church-at-large.

This criticism of criticism has been a trend in evangelical circles for awhile. Thomas Oden and others have seen the weakness of an over-reliance on the Historical-Critical approach to Scripture, and one reason I became Catholic is because the Church has a sane approach to Scripture, one that doesn’t render the Bible a literal, inerrant to the letter textbook of all things, or turn it into a “de-mythologized” book among many.

Leroy Huizenga from Wheaton has some excellent things to say about these issues on his faculty page:

The post-Enlightenment period has been a time of fracture in which such a holistic, coherent understanding of Scripture and its function has suffered dissolution: the Bible has been separated from the Church and its tradition; faith has been separated from reason; Jesus has been separated from Christ, the Gospels, the Apostles, and the Church; the Apostles have been separated from each other; and exegesis has been separated from theology. Many contemporary scholars and theologians, however, regard this state of affairs as less than desirable and are endeavoring to put the pieces back together in serious attempts at creative reintegration. Such attempts are neither pre-critical nor naive; rather, they are undertaken on the far side of the desert of criticism in the realm of a second naivete.

I believe that postcritical retrieval involves renewed consideration of the relationship of biblical studies and theology, reflection on the historical development and hermeneutical significance of the canon, attention to the history of biblical interpretation, an awareness and appreciation of intellectual history and the questioning of received academic wisdom. Thus, in my work I am concerned to bring philosophy, theology, the history of interpretation, theory, and exegesis together.

Amen again.