Archive: Unravelling Modern Theology
By Dwight Sullivan
Recently I attended a lecture that was both striking and disturbing. The speaker was Dr. Eta Linnemann, an eminent New Testament scholar who studied under the famous Rudolf Bultmann, a giant of the “Historical Criticism” of the Bible. Well into her own eminent career, Dr. Linnemann—according to her own account—came to know and accept Jesus Christ as her personal Lord and Savior. Her outlook has changed on the Historical-Critical Approach to biblical interpretation. Once its champion, Dr. Linnemann has now become its challenger and presents her case in Historical Criticism of the Bible—Methodology or Ideology? Reflections of a Bultmannian Turned Evangelical (Baker Book, 1991).
Dr. Linnemann’s new thinking represents a critical challenge for our United Methodist Church. The average United Methodist may not be aware that the Historical-Critical Approach shapes much of our UM theological outlook. Our UM seminaries teach it. Its results are accepted as scholarly fact (often with the attitude that there is no other viewpoint except those espoused by the ignorant, unenlightened, or simple-minded.) Our modern theology is shaped by it; our Sunday school material inspired by it; our faith based on it.
What is Historical-Critical Methodology? Conceived over 250 years ago, it is an approach which claims to be scientific. It begins by treating the Bible, for the purpose of inquiry, as any other writing. Its aim is not devotion, but dissection. Rather than give a biblical passage the benefit of the doubt, it doubts the words until they can be “proven” or “confirmed.” It subjects every biblical passage to the scrutiny of human thought to find “truth,” which then directs interpretation.
Dwight Sullivan
Now this bedrock of our theology is being challenged by one with the name and knowledge to do it. This methodology, which has brought forth numerous theories of unseen writers of the Bible (such as “J”, “E”, “P”, “D”, in the Old Testament and “Q” in the New Testament), is now being cross-examined as suspect.
Dr. Linnemann states that the Historical-Critical Approach:
- claims to be both “scientific” and “objective” but is neither,
- has made idols of science and reason,
- relativizes the Scriptures,
- believes “what the biblical text clearly states can by no means be true,”
- tries to open the Word of God using methods that function as though there is no God,
- and uses “pseudo-morphosis,” which is using the right Christian words while switching their meanings.
When I heard Dr. Linnemann, something inside me went “click!” To earn my doctorate I was pickled in the Historical-Critical Methodology for five years of school, and it seemed quite kosher. But after nearly 19 years as a pastor in the real church, I have increasingly profound doubts. I must be honest. What this method of biblical interpretation results in does not seem to be the same Christianity as that which swayed the Roman Empire (or for that matter, 18th Century England through John Wesley).
Given our United Methodist adherence to the Historical-Critical Methodology, would Dr. Linnemann’s expose explain why:
- those who believe the Bible as really true—such as evangelicals or charismatics—seem faintly welcomed in our denomination, and tend to be discouraged from the clergy, screened out from our seminary faculties, and “frozen out” from places of leadership?
- during annual conference floor debates, there seems often to be light regard for the Scriptures as being the authoritative Word of God?
- biblical words seem to be used differently now? Is this how, for example, “sin” has had its biblical meaning of “idolatry” replaced for some by “discrimination” or “homophobia”?
- our membership is declining?
If Dr. Linnemann is right, might this not mean we need to re-examine our theological education? Have “mainline” biblical scholars become like a school of fish blindly heading into the belly of a whale? Have they become so busy reading each other’s writings that they miss reading the Handwriting on the Wall? Are the local churches actually funding the paganization of their own church? In the name of the “honesty,” “modernity,” and “objectivity” that is claimed by the faithful of this approach, are we ending with a “different Gospel”?
Dr. Linnemann raises for me troubling questions about the cornerstone of our UM Church, the Critical-Historical Methodology. How we deal with her honest and probing questions will be crucial for our future.
Dwight Sullivan is the pastor of Whittier Evangelical United Methodist Church in Whittier, California.
0 Comments