The Rule of Faith and Biblical Interpretation

Reform, Resistance, and Renewal

Fennell

• Publisher: Cascade Books
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781498299626
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

Among the dizzying array of approaches to reading the Bible, the oldest, most revered interpretive tool rises above the rest: the Rule of Faith. Faithful interpretation of Scripture in the postmodern context has much to learn from this ancient principle. Deeper engagement with the sacred text flourishes with the assistance of the Rule of Faith. That engagement in turn renews the Body of Christ.This book explores the interpretive practices of great reformers and renewers of the church, including Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, who kept up a lively dialogue with the ancient authors of the Christian movement. In that dialogue, they discovered a dynamic guide to better exegesis. Robert C. Fennell provides a compelling account of faithful interpreters from the past whose example inspires contemporary readers as they seek to understand the Bible.

1

Ruled Readings

How the Rule of Faith Guides Biblical Interpretation

Regula fidei—the Rule of Faith—is a term that has been used since the earliest Christian centuries. Irenaeus and Tertullian are its most famous definers, although many used the term and correlative expressions.1 The reformers I profile in this book, Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, sometimes referred to Paul’s phrase in Rom 12:6, analogia fidei (the analogy of faith), and I will argue that this functioned in a nearly identical way to what was meant by the Rule of Faith. The Rule has never been one single thing for all Christians. Indeed, the same writer in the ancient era might have outlined it in one way in one place, then differently elsewhere. But the core principle was the same: there is a rule (a measuring stick, limit-point, or governing norm) that is grounded in faith (convictions, rather than reason, logic, or history). That rule is not so rigid that it would shatter if bent: rather, it is a flexible and supple instrument that teaches and guides even as it norms and limits. I offer the following definition:

The Rule of Faith is a constellation of the communal beliefs, values, expectations, assumptions, and practices that together express the norms of Christian faith.

That constellation might be recorded in a more or less formal way (as the ancient writers sometimes did); or it might be assumed as a series of unwritten presuppositions; or it might be scattered here and there in a body of literature. The Rule of Faith might include convictions about Jesus Christ, the nature of God, the person and work of the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, creation, salvation, and life after death; it could describe or prescribe normative patterns of personal conduct, communal relating, or worship. All such elements were important, for the Rule constituted “the list of the things to be believed, what [was] assumed to be the heart of the tradition handed down from apostolic times, the summary of the gospel message.”2 In short, the Rule outlines the core convictions that matter most, convictions that provide the principal forms and constitutive parameters of the Christian way. When the Rule was written down, it was usually stated in straightforward terms without much elaboration. Detailed explanation came through practices like catechesis (faith formation) and preaching.

One of the better-known expressions of the Rule of Faith is the Apostles’ Creed. It enumerates faith statements that are central to the Christian way, but little elaboration is given: “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord.” These are propositional statements that don’t take the time to explicate the content of the terms in which they are expressed (such as “Father” and “Lord”). Such terms might be misunderstood, except that they operate within a shared semantic space. That is, they are meaningful terms for and within the Christian community itself, which is shaped and governed by shared assumptions and convictions about what those terms mean. That phrase, “shared assumptions,” is an important part of my argument: the communal nature of the Rule is part of what defines it. It was assumed by those who shaped the Creed over several decades that a local community would receive the text of this faith statement, explore it, and live it out in the ways they believed to be faithful and consistent with the whole (transgeographic) Christian witness and way.

So the regula fidei is a communal creature. The Rule is never a private, idiosyncratic collection or smorgasbord of things that you or I might personally like to believe or do. Central to the very notion of regula fidei is that it is a shared set of convictions and practices, a shared story if you like, about Christian ways of living and believing. To return to the metaphor of a constellation, the Rule of Faith is like a picture that we agree we see together. Just as there are countless stars in the sky above us, there are countless ways of being religious, countless things to believe or practice. But when we look at the skies and start to see specific constellations among the stars, that is, patterned relationships, a whole picture emerges from the randomness of the points of light. There is coherence in what we see. And—importantly—there is broad agreement among us about that coherence.

Similarly, when we see and agree about patterned relationships among our core convictions, doctrinal norms, and ways of living and practicing the Christian faith, we are “constellating” them into a vision that is coherent and whole. This is the Rule of Faith. It is a communal reality, then, received and articulated by communities, not just a private view of things. Christians often draw their faith communities into close consultation with other Christian communities.3 Vincent of Lérins in the fifth century even went so far as to speak of “that faith which has always been believed everywhere, always, by all,” the faith that “the whole Church throughout the world confesses.”4 This is a sweeping claim, and quite foreign to us in the age of postmodern fragmentation. Today it would be hard to imagine that anything could be believed always, by everyone, everywhere. It is easy to think of exceptions. But Vincent was on to something important. We will return to his motto and its significance in chapter 2. For now, the thing to notice is this phenomenon of drawing what we believe and do into a coherent whole, something like a constellation, and then to see how it impacts how we read and understand the Bible.

As late modern or postmodern people, we might be tempted to think of the regula fidei as a thing of the past, an antiquated relic from dead history. Vincent’s totalizing motto (about the faith that is held “everywhere, always, by all”) isn’t much help in overcoming that perception. But here is the startling reality: everyone reads by a Rule of Faith. A “rule” of some kind is always operative whenever Christians think through their faith and practice, including and especially biblical interpretation. There are always norms, guidelines, and touchstones in play that shape the structure of our interpretation as we enact what we believe. When communities interpret the Bible together, they don’t make it up as they go: there are always previously held, common faith commitments and core beliefs. Those commitments and beliefs permit some readings and exclude others, on the basis of what is held to be faithful and true. What we believe and how we try to live will guide, norm, permit, and prevent various interpretive moves. That is the Rule of Faith in action. It is always in play, even when we are not fully aware of it or how it is at work. When applied to biblical interpretation, the Rule of Faith forms the filter through which God’s Word is heard in Scripture. Such filtering is natural, not a negative thing. We all hear the Word in terms that make sense to us, through our own experiences, contexts, cultures, convictions, hopes, norms, and expectations. No one can possibly approach the Bible “from nowhere,” as if we did not already have a perspective and presuppositions. We bring who we are and what we believe with us when we read Scripture. It is unavoidable. Of course, the Bible might well confirm or challenge, uphold or overturn presuppositions, prior norms, and ways of believing. But the point is that the Rule of Faith is already operating before we begin to read. “Any reader who approaches a text for the first time does so with pre-conceived categories.”5 Before a single syllable is heard, read, or prayed over, readers are already shaped by families, friends, and fellow travelers on the road of faith. Our culture(s), clan, national history, ethnicity, and education influence us. We are especially formed by our faith and its practices of prayer, worship, music, spiritual disciplines, and so on. The Holy Spirit also has something to say in that process.

When we read the Bible, we are always already bringing with us the things we believe, treasure, and hold dear. We bring our biases and prejudices, our internal norms and the external authorities we recognize. We bring our pet projects and hobbyhorses. Every one of us is a conglomeration of opinions and attitudes, and these color our interpretation, even when we do not think we are interpreting, but “just reading.” Our social location, economic status, relationships, family background, gender, sexuality, nationality, and so on together make up a set of “lenses” through which we look at the text and make decisions about what it means. We accept and reject, adopt and respond, in dynamic relation with those many influences and approaches we bring with us. This is true for all individual readers and all communities of readers. In other words, as soon as we begin to read or listen, we start to interpret through unconscious filters. As a result, there are no “uninterpreted” readings. To claim that we are not interpreting as we read is simply to lack self-awareness. The lenses through which we perceive and receive the Word are, as it were, already resting comfortably on the bridge of our noses.

This phenomenon of having interpretive filters or wearing lenses every time we read the Bible is not at all strange. We all filter what we read, hearing the emphases that make sense to us, missing the details that do not strike us as important. This is true with everything we read, watch, or listen to, regardless of the medium. Such filtering is going on all the time, as we sort through and adjudicate what we believe to be authentic and meaningful. Even diligent Scripture scholars who seek objective or impartial readings of the Bible still have presuppositions and faith commitments (or at least opinions) that shape how they interpret things. With these influences always operating in us, we never really read the Bible “merely” at face value. Most of us have been taught to expect that the Bible has meanings that go deeper than the surface. Nearly everyone seeks to discern the meaning of what we read.6 We work to apply it to our own lives in terms that make sense to us, based on who we are and how we have been formed and taught. That discernment of meaning happens through the matrix of the Rule of Faith, which is always already operative, especially in communal interpretation. Without the Rule of Faith, we would never communicate, let alone share, anything resembling a common faith. In the practices of biblical interpretation, the Rule of Faith becomes a mode of proceeding, and a method of testing what counts, what we regard as legitimate, or what is “in order” and “out of order.”

Looking to the great heritage of the faithful past, we find deep and rich resources for the present. In the ancient Christian era, in Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, and among some moderns, we see significant exemplars of “ruled reading.” But even more, their stories challenge us to think through how the faith of our communities is shaping our approach to the Bible today. When we read and interpret the Bible in our time and place, what are the norms and standards we apply? Which of our assumptions, values, and faith commitments are at work, consciously or unconsciously? Such presuppositions are not always visible. But they are at work, even when we strive to let the Bible speak to us plainly and on its own terms. What we already believe about the person and work of Jesus Christ, for example, or the doctrine of forgiveness, or what it means for human beings to be part of creation—these and countless other faith commitments are operative as soon as we open the text.

The next few chapters are meant to help readers of the Bible (and especially communities of readers) to become more aware of how the Rule of Faith influences the interpretation of Scripture. The lense...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Ruled Readings
• Chapter 2: In the Beginning Was the Rule
• Chapter 3: Martin Luther
• Chapter 4: John Calvin
• Chapter 5: John Wesley
• Chapter 6: Rejection and Resistance
• Chapter 7: The Rule of Faith in the Late Modern/Postmodern Church
• Bibliography