Wineskins Contributor・05/11/19

One of the greatest gifts that I received from growing up in the Churches of Christ is being taught a love and respect for Scripture from an early age. My father and the teachers at my little rural church made the Scripture come alive, and I saw the text lived out among the people around me. I had always considered myself to be a “Christian only” but one day at the lunch table in junior high a fellow student called me a ‘Campbellite.’ By the tone of the other student, I did not take this moniker as a compliment. I went home that evening and asked my father what my interlocutor meant by the accusation of ‘Campbellism.’ It almost sounded like some dreaded disease. My dad explained to me on a very basic level that Alexander Campbell was a man that lived in the early 19th century that helped restore New Testament Christianity. He informed me that I did not follow Alexander Campbell because he was a mere man, but we follow Jesus. I was happy with that explanation and continued unhindered until my college years. In my college years, the challenges to my faith came from more robust and nuanced arguments. During that stage in my life, I became ‘self-aware’ that I had certain biases when I read Scripture that differed with other people that claimed to be followers of Jesus. I also realized that I had a method of interpretation that differed greatly from my Roman Catholic and Episcopalian friends.

I remember reading F. LaGard Smith’s book The Cultural Church during that period, andthat reading made me more aware that my interpretive grid for reading Scripturewas something I had taken for granted. As I have gotten older, I have grown torespect my heritage in the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement. Part ofrespecting one’s faith heritage means to celebrate the good but also challengethe parts that are lacking, and that canbe improved.

Alexander Campbell came upon the religiousscene in America in a very exciting and liberating time. Along with the freedomand optimism of a new nation, thereligious leaders of the early 19th century were also experiencing anew freedom and optimism as they approached the Bible. The freedom that came atthe end of the 18th century and the dawning of the 19thcentury opened the door to religious possibilities that were unheard of just ageneration before. Alexander Campbell came to America from Ireland and Scotlandduring this exciting time and was a visionary when it came to unity and the challengingof long-held religious traditions. Campbellpublished his book The Christian Systemin 1839 and in that volume, he laid out his view of the Bible and his method ofinterpretation. Much of the vision that he gives in that volume is still veryinfluential among members of the Churches of Christ today. In this essay, I will discuss the influences uponAlexander Campbell in his views of interpretation, and I will provide ananalysis of the worth of Campbell’s method for the church today along with somecritique.

Alexander Campbell’s view of the Bible did not occur in a vacuum. Campbell’s view of the world was one of order and reason. Campbell shared the Enlightenment period’s optimistic view of the objectivity and power of reason. One can see that the early 17th-century thinker Sir Francis Bacon’s method of scientific inquiry and view of empirical epistemology was part of Campbell’s mental map. Bacon’s methods revolutionized how people in the Western world understood how they gained and organized knowledge. Probably the greatest philosophical influence upon Alexander Campbell was John Locke. John Locke began his work in the 17th century after years of religious wars and strife in Europe. Locke was searching for a systematic way to look at government and the Bible that would bring about peace and an end to the religious conflicts of his time.[1] Locke believed that government had no right to enforce religious orthodoxy upon its subjects. Locke also proposed that religion be reduced to a minimal set of principles that could be deemed as essentials. Locke believed that Christianity could be defended through evidence and that it was reasonable especially in the areas of Jesus’ Messiahship and obedience to His clear commands. One could embrace other doctrines outside those core essentials, but those nonessential doctrines could not be used as a basis to coerce others. Campbell differed with Locke on what he considered to be the essentials of the faith but took the Lockean principle of rationality and unity. Campbell was also steeped in the Scottish Common Sense method of Biblical interpretation that was especially popular in the Presbyterianism of his day. Scottish Common Sense proposed that words are a direct representation of the objects they represent. The strong connection from sign to referent may not sound revolutionary, but this tenant of Scottish Common Sense is in direct opposition to some of the concepts laid down by Jacques Derrida in postmodern deconstructionism.

When one reads Campbell’s view ofinterpretation in The Christian System, they can observe strong rationalisticinfluences upon his thought. Campbell states that the Bible is the “full andperfect revelation of God and his will, adapted to man as he now is” (Campbell,3).[2] Noticethat Campbell endorses the Protestant Reformation ideal of the perspicuity ofScripture. The knowledge of Scripture is attainable by all. Campbell’santhropology shows the role of reason in his thought. Campbell viewed man as ananimal, intellectual, and moralistic inhis constitution (Campbell, 3). Campbell observed God’s revelation to betwo-fold in that it is displayed in nature and inthe special revelation of Scripture (Campbell, 2). Because man is anintellectual being, Campbell believed that reason should be employed equally inthe study of nature and the study of theBible (Campbell 2–3). One can observe that Campbell is espousing an almostscientific view of interpreting the Bible. Just as Sir Isaac Newton had reducedthe universe to predictable laws, one could use a systematic approach to theBible, and through that approach, all could come up with the same conclusions.Through Baconian logic when scientist stuck to the facts of natural revelation,all scientists came to the same conclusion and Campbell reasoned that the sameshould be true of the Bible. If one applies a systematic approach, thenconsensus in biblical interpretation can be attained. Campbell believed unitywould be achieved by honestly applying reason to the text.

In The Christian System Campbell lays out seven principles for proper and rational biblicalinterpretation and these seven principles arebased on the bedrock belief that one should build their practice and belief on a specific command from Scripture or an approved precedent (Campbell,xi). Campbell’s seven rules of interpretation have a lot in common with today’shistorical-grammatical approach to biblical interpretation. In this essay, we will only examine a few of Campbell’sprinciples. Campbell’s first principle dealt with the historical situation of aspecific book of the Bible (Campbell, 4). The historical concerns included thefollowing: the historical order of the book, the title of the book, the author,the date, the place, and the occasion for writing the book (Campbell, 4). Anotherprinciple of Campbell dealt with examining the people addressed in the book(Campbell, 4). One should consider the addressee’s prejudices, historicalsituation, and religious beliefs when interpreting a biblical text (Campbell,4). Campbell also believed that if a word had multiple meanings, then the context of the passage and other usages of thatword in the Bible should be considered (Campbell, 4). In a sense, Campbell wasapplying Occam’s Razor to biblical interpretation.[3]Campbell’s seventh rule emphasized humility in the reader as they come underthe lordship of the text (Campbell, 5). In his last principle, Campbell putgreat import in a humble disposition in the reader of the book (Campbell, 5).

Many times, we practice intellectual snobbery as we lookback from our postmodern high tower and cast aspersions at Campbell and hisrationalistic methods. I find it humorous to consider that the same rationalisticthinking that influenced Campbell was what produced much of what we take forgranted like modern medicine and many scientific advances that we hold dear. AsI wrote this essay I kept coming back to the question, “why have we maderationalism such the bogeyman of the Churches of Christ?” I don’t know manypeople that want to go back to premodern medicine because we feel thatrationality is a bad thing. The problem of throwing out rationalism is thatwhen one wants to get to the original meaning of the text as the author intended, we must employ many of the tools ofrationalism. I also find it hard to believe that ancient interpreters did notuse the same tools of rationality without modernlabels. I can read the early church fathers such as Justin Martyr and hisdialogue with Trypho the Jew and see rationality in his argument. I can lookforward in church history and see robustrationality in the work of Erasmus of Rotterdam. Is rationality as bad as somemake it out to be? Should we abandon the approach bequeathed to us by AlexanderCampbell? In answering that question, I believe it is important to look atCampbell with a sense of charitableness that comes from a sense of thankfulnessfor our Stone-Campbell heritage. Some things that we have in common withCampbell is our love for Jesus, respect for God’s revelation in Scripture, anda desire for unity.  These commonalitiesmake this venture a family discussion that is worth having.

Even though I see a lot of strengths in Campbell’srationalistic approach, I can see manyblind spots in his method as well. One place of improvement is to consider the prejudicesand assumptions that the modern reader brings to the text. The realization ofreader bias is a blessing that postmodernity brings to us by making us aware ofour preconceived notions. It is foolhardynot to believe that our socioeconomic,educational opportunities, and theologicalgrid of interpretation does not affecthow we read the text. I found this principle to be true when I read GrantOsborne’s The Hermeneutical Spiral.Osborne demonstrates that many 19th century interpretersreinterpreted Jesus to be a type of paleo-liberal scholar of his day that hadmore in common with them than He did witha 2nd Temple Judaism Jew. In my ministry,I have noticed how the bias and prior conceptions of the people I minister towork as a sieve through which they read the text. For example, many people Ihave ministered to over the years filter the Apostle Paul’s anthropologythrough the lens of platonic Greek thought. They fail to realize the integratedview of the human person that a Jew in the first century would have. Because ofthis predisposition to Greek categories, the reader deemphasizes the value ofthe human body as an integrated whole and misses the power of what the Bibleteaches about the resurrection. The point of this is to emphasize thatCampbell’s method lacked this view of reader bias. Campbell’s concept that onecould be a truly objective reader was a bit naïve. I am not saying that becauseof this one can never find the truth behind the text but I am proposing that tofind that true teaching we must be aware of our bias and frailties.

I would propose another critique of Campbell’s method isits weakness in dealing with the Old Testament. One of the weaknesses of ourheritage is a very minimalist approach to the role of the Old Testament in thelife of a Christian. Just the phrase ‘New Testament Christian’ betrays that weakness.I propose that we should become ‘whole Bible Christians.’ It is very naïve tothink that the church had the twenty-seven books of our New Testament in aTommy Nelson leather-bound Bible by theend of the first century. The Scripture of the early church was the OldTestament. The earliest Christians learned to read the Old TestamentChristocentrically. I am not advocating for bringing back the sacrificialsystem or Solomonic Temple, but I amadvocating for understanding that the New Testament was written with the understanding that the reader is steeped in Old Testament terms, motifs, andtheology. Our hermeneutic has been robbedby our lack of respect for the validity of the Old Testament. The New Testamentwriters are writing with a shared economy of words and thoughts that originatefrom the Old Testament. The entire Bible should beread as God’s grand narrative of rescue for humanity. N.T. Wright has done great work in this view of the OldTestament. Wright makes the point that to correctly interpret how to use theOld Testament in the life of the Christian is to understand what act of God’sdrama that you are a part of in the story. If you are in the ‘church’ act orthe ‘age of the Holy Spirit,’ then thereare certain parts of the Old Testament such as Hebrew ceremonial law that doesn’t apply to you or they have beenfulfilled in the work of Jesus. This method is much better than the watertight categories that I grew up with suchas the Patriarchal Age, Mosaic, Age, and Christian Age.

There have been many advances in biblical scholarship in the last century when it comes to the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament. It is easy for us to make this critique of Campbell’s lack of nuance in interpretation as it relates to the Old Testament now because of the more recent contributions of scholars like Richard Hays and Michael Fishbane when it comes to the study of intertextuality. Intertextuality means that the New Testament writers used words and phrases that anchor the New Testament text to the Old Testament. Some early restoration leaders advocated that we should read the Bible as if fell from the sky. We are finding now that that is impossible. There is a shared currency that the New Testament writers have with the antecedents in the Old Testament. There are many echoes of older texts within more recent texts of the Bible.

It is easy for the interpreter to pick up direct quotesfrom the Old Testament that are givenwith introductory formulas such as ‘this was done to fulfill,’ but itis much more difficult to pick up on quotations that flow naturally in thetext. For example, Philippians 1:19 has a section that is a direct quote fromthe LXX version of Job 13:16. When Paul quotes from Job 13:16 he is not sayingthat his suffering is a fulfillment of Job’s suffering. He is embedding anolder text into his writing of Philippians to take the reader back to thesituation of the writing of Job. Job wasa fellow sufferer who was vindicated. Theinterpretation of Philippians 1:19 is enriched when the reader realizes thatPaul wants you to take part in the ‘great conversation’ with the Old Testamenttext.

Another aspect of Campbell that I findlacking in his work is the absence of developed pneumatology. In the Churchesof Christ, we have a great strength of being Christocentric in our theology ofthe church, but we have been sorely lacking in a theology of the Holy Spirit. Ibelieve that it is almost unbiblical to champion a very individualistic readingof the Bible that takes it out of the heart to the Spirit-filled church. Biblicalinterpretation that endorses a radical individualism fails to take into accounthow communal the New Testament is. Even when John is bearing testimony of theveracity of his Gospel he does so with communal language when he states, “Thisis the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has writtenthese things, and we know thathis testimony is true (John 21:24 ESV).” When one reads the Pauline epistles,it is staggering how much the ‘you’ admonitions are in reality ‘ya’ll’exhortations. In other words, much of what we have read to be individualisticinstructions are written to entire groups of people.

We quickly forget that the church is thetemple of the Holy Spirit. In 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Paul states, “Do you notknow that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyonedestroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and youare that temple  (ESV).” The ‘you’ ofverses sixteen and seventeen are plurals. The church is filled and animatedwith God’s Spirit. I believe that the interpretation of Scripture is best donein the heart of the church alongside other believers. This no guarantee that weare interpreting the Bible correctly but it does safeguard against fringereadings and interpretations. It is powerful to consider that the early churchgathered for the communal reading of the text and the same Spirit that inspiredthe text of the Bible imbibes and animates the church.

Another aspect that I find troubling aboutCampbell is his suspicion of traditional readings. I understand that thereligious divisions of his day influenced his thinking, but I believe we shouldturn to the wisdom of ancient Christians to help in interpreting the text. Wehave a treasure trove in the Early Church Fathers. Extensive writings by mensuch as Iraneaus, who was a spiritual grandchild to John the Apostle, are stillavailable to us today. I am not saying that the Early Church Fathers' writingsare authoritative, but I am proposing that their writings give us some guidelinesto how certain passages were interpreted in the period closest to the lives ofthe authors of the New Testament. G.K. Chesterton once said that tradition isthe ‘democracy of the dead.’ Just as the church should read the Biblecommunally, I propose we should read it with the entire great cloud ofwitnesses that have gone on before us like the early Church Fathers.

In conclusion, much can be commended toCampbell’s approach to interpreting Scripture. I believe that members of theChurches of Christ should embrace and celebrate the heritage we have been given.Part of that celebration is to improve upon the methods of interpretation thatwe have been given. It is also imperative that we keep our spiritual ears opento the leading to the Holy Spirit. Leonard Ravenhill once said, “The Holy Bookof the living God suffers more from its exponents today than from its opponents.”Let us prayerfully endeavor not to do violence to the text or misrepresent ourSavior through poor exegesis. It is surely a noble endeavor to continue tostrive to find the truth that God reveals to us in Holy Scripture. I canconfidently say our brother Alexander Campbell would encourage us to do justthat.

[1] For a good examination of JohnLocke and his influence on Alexander Campbell see C. Leonard Allen and RichardT. Hughes’s book Discovering Our Roots:The Ancestry of the Churches of Christ pgs. 78–80.

[2] All in text citations are fromAlexander Campbell’s The Christian System.

[3] Occam’s Razor can be easilydescribed as, “the simpler solution that requires the least speculation isprobably the best answer.”