Comments on: The Bible for elites?

By: Patrick George McCullough

Patrick George McCullough — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 16:10:00 +0000

Thanks for the comments, Dave. I agree that there is a kind of elitism in denominationalism, sectarianism, or factionalism. I don’t think that the Anabaptists would be good examples historically to combat that. One of the reasons we got ourselves into trouble in the 16th century (along with our positive convictions) was that we thought we were better than everybody else. Or at least that’s my understanding. There were some who tried to be a little softer in their speech, perhaps like Pilgram Marpeck. And then we have a history of schism, too. But part of the reason for that is because Anabaptists are traditionally very low church and look upon centralized leadership with a suspicious eye.

Anyway, I do agree that we should be willing to listen to other traditions. I think that Richard Mouw is the best example I can think of. He’s obviously solidly rooted in Calvinism, but very willing to talk with Anabaptists. He’s even dialogging with Mormons, when it gets him into trouble with many evangelicals. That’s not even to mention secular philosophers. I’m glad to be at a seminary where he is at the helm.

By: slaveofone

slaveofone — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 03:18:00 +0000

There is another type of elitism which quite irks me. It argues that only those who are the true People of God should teach and that since those “in the dark” cannot understand “things of the light”, we should disregard or dismiss teaching, wisdom, and such which comes from outside the boundaries of this holy umbrella. The problems in such a perspective are manifold.

I would assume that since Anabaptism considers itself as having roots in many other traditions, that it would not altogether dismiss them…nor in its separation from the world, consider those outside Anabaptism and the will of Yahweh incapable of being led by Him, and even, perhaps, rightly challenging Anabaptism itself when or where appropriate.

By: Patrick George McCullough

Patrick George McCullough — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 03:09:00 +0000

Thanks, Chris and Matt! Those are both very helpful comments. I don't know why that didn't come to mind as I was thinking about this post. It helps me think about how I might lead these discussions with people from church.

Also, Matt, thanks for pointing that book out to me. Chris, have you read it (being the Fowl expert in our midst)? Do either of you know if it would be much different from Reading Scripture with the Church?

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 01:30:00 +0000

I agree with Chris and was prepared to make the same comment. I love the idea of a community of readers/interpreters. I immediately think of the book Reading in Communion by Fowl and Jones. They argue that biblical interpretation can and should be done in communion with one another and that in doing so the community will be transformed morally and theologically. I don't recall if they consider the role of the "trained" inside the community, but they do discuss the role of academics on the outside of the community. The work of scholarship should inform the community as they interpret (as should the situation in which the community finds itself).

My guess would be that the "trained" should serve as guides, similar to trail-guides on wilderness hikes. They have been down some of these trails before. However, the others hikers also have valid and interesting perspectives to bring to the table.

By: Chris Spinks

Chris Spinks — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 20:52:00 +0000

Pat, I think one of the elements missing in the question posed to Jim, in Jim’s response, and even in your reflections is the community of readers. The implications in the discussion above all point to a single reader who is or is not qualified to interpret the text for others. While, I do believe some are appointed and duly trained to be teachers and pastors (one unified concept in Ephesians, by the way), or interpreters “for others” in West’s terms, these people are never (or should never be) isolated interpreters. Many of the “others” to whom West is referring are as much a part of the interpretive process as the “qualified”. Of course, my thoughts here are related to my developing ideas about the role of the community of interpreters. One of the areas even we anabaptists have had a hard time de-individualizing is biblical interpretation. While we are gung-ho community in many other places, we have not yet figured out how to be good at community interpretation of scripture.