A "Return" to American Evangelical Hermeneutics

For anyone who has read me for any length of time at all, it should by now be eminently clear that I have somewhat removed myself from the usual Evangelical-Fundamentalist method of biblical interpretation (not because I think I am better than, or because I no longer self-identify as an American Evangelical; because I do); or from what is known as the historical-critical or Literal, Grammatical, Historical (LGH) reading of the scriptures. It is, in fact, this method of biblical interpretation that has given rise to an idiosyncratic (and I mean this in the sense that this method is peculiar, by and large, to a certain and even large swath of American Evangelicals) expression of this kind of interpretive work; which as I have been surveying in a couple of posts (here & here) prior, is known as dispensationalism. 

I have often, again for anyone who has been reading me for any length of time, referenced how this situation, for American Evangelicals, has come to be. That is, how it is that many American Evangelicals have embraced this mode of biblical interpretation for themselves; it is really a quite ironic (and unfortunate) move, since it is this kind of rationalist, positivistic, and historist approach to biblical interpretation that these same American Evangelicals (originally known as Fundamentalists---I realize they are not the same exact thing, socio-culturally, but Evangelicalism still operates, linguistically and doctrinally from the same historical moorings that their parents, the Fundamentalists taught them) were decrying. They were fighting against the penetration of historical-criticism into the halls of what used to be 'Conservative' American Christianity (like that represented at Princeton, with B.B. Warfield & co.); and yet they chose to fight fire with fire instead of using water to put the fire out [I'd like to try fighting this historical-critical fire and its penetration into American Evangelicalism with the fresh and everlasting water of Jesus Christ ... the kind that once a person gets a drink of she/he never want anything else again]. Jens Zimmerman provides a good sketch, and helpful substantiation of my oft assertions in this very regard; Zimmerman writes,

Modernist interpretation emphasized historical-critical reading of the scriptures that modified or denied the Bible's own claim to be divine revelation and largely abandoned the biblical text as a unity. As a result, other texts gained more importance, and hermeneutics came to be conceived more broadly, comprising secular literature as well. Historical criticism is, of course, enormously important for any textual work. The historical-critical school, with its application of scientific method and positivistic approach to the biblical text, however, forces texts into the Procrustean [sic] bed of an Enlightement framework and rationalist standards, lopping off offending and bothersome textual elements and unenlightened statements with almost Puritan zeal.

Modern fundamentalists [and Evangelicals] who react against this so-called liberal theology unfortunately proceed from the same assumption as the "enemy," namely, that a text can have only one normative meaning but many possible applications, which can never become normative. Premodern interpreters by contrast possessed superior interpretive concepts, such as progressive revelation and typology, and were more keenly aware of the multiple layers of textual meanings. Their view of God's word as a vehicle of typological exegesis, the idea of sensus plenior [fuller meaning], and the analogy of faith renders fundamentalist notions of stable, unitary meanings highly problematic. Yet fundamentalist interpreters cheerfully continue to use modernist principles in their defense of theology, a highly unhelpful strategy of entrenchment, the zeal of whose practitioners does little to conceal the increasing irrelevance of their effort. [brackets our mine] [Jens Zimmerman, Recovering Theological Hermeneutics: An Incarnational-Trinitarian Theory of Interpretation, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004), 22-3.]

If this is juxtaposed with my last post on dispensationalism, it becomes clear how dispensational hermeneutics came to be; they are simply a re-telling of an centuries old American interpretive schema (with German origins) that has been employed over and over again within American biblical exegesis and exposition. Such that, the capacity for folk who have sat under the sway of this sometimes bellicose system of interpretation have become incapacitated to critically make a distinction between their system of biblical interpretation and the actual biblical narrative and its primary meaning.

Again, this post only really gestures towards the more 'Christ-conditioned' approach that I want to advocate for. Adam Nigh, an contributing author to our book has offered good development on how I would like to move forward in understanding a doctrine of scripture, an ontology of scripture (its place relative to God's own Self-testimony and speech for us); and how these two realities implicate a system of interpretation (hermeneutics) that finds its orientation intensively in its reality, Jesus Christ. Adam's chapter is entitled The Depth Dimension of Scripture: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Calvinism [Chapter 3]. Adam sometimes ;-) blogs over at Out of Bounds.

Anyway, as usual, there is more to be said; and I will try to say more as this living thing known as my blog continues to give expression to more of my flowering thoughts on such things and more (of course).   

Glenn Beck & Tim Ballard Need to Repent: The Divinization of America and Anglo Israelism Repackaged

I just watched a clip from Glenn Beck's show on his network GBTV. For those who don't know, Glenn Beck is an American commentator who has risen to fame through his analysis of current events; which most often includes themes related to global economic collapse, world war III, and the belief that we are at a tipping point in world history in which there will be a restructuring of the global situation from what we have known it to be up to this point. Beck is LDS (Latter Day Saint), or Mormon in orientation; and it is his commitment to this kind of belief structure that informs his particular kind of Americanism ('Nationalism'), and interpretation of current events. He often collaborates with known Evangelical Christians, and thus has a rather hybrided (from a pure Mormon eschatology) view of prophetic history according to Scripture (in other words he seems to mix Dispensational Premillennial Zionism with his Mormon end times expectations).

Back to the clip I just mentioned, here it is:

In the past, Beck has hinted, for the discerning listener, at the idea that he believes America has ties to ancient Israel (which is exactly what Joseph Smith taught; i.e. that the Mormon's were the descendents of King David, etc.). So with this belief, it is fitting that he would hearken to ideas about the founding of America which believed that America was the 'New Israel' (which is really just post-millennialism gone awry and to its logical conclusion); indeed, there were many founding Fathers of America who believed this (just read Noll's, Hatches', and Marsden's 'The Search For Christian America'). But Glenn (from all appearances), and one of his most recent guests take this even further than many of these founding Fathers. Glenn's guest, Tim Ballard (who I believe is also Mormon, he is a graduate of Brigham Young University), argues in his recently released book, The Covenant, One Nation Under God: America's Sacred Connection with Ancient Israel, that the American Founders were the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That is, that these American's, in fact, are blood descendants of ethnic Israel. Ballard's thinking is only a reiteration of what has been called British Israelism, or Anglo Israelism (read about it here). In a nutshell, this is the belief that the lost 10 tribes of Israel, after the scattering and captivity from the Assyrians, migrated to parts of Western Europe and the British Isles; it is this genealogy, that Anglo Israelism taps into for their argument that the founding Fathers of America believed themselves to be fulfilling prophecy by founding America, or the New Israel. Ballard takes this literally, and gives this belief divine sanction, in his book (from what I can surmise); here is what is written about his book in a blurb at his website:

[T]o be clear, this book is not about America's ties to the Jewish State formed by U.N. edict in 1948 called “Israel” but rather, the text hearkens back to the period of 720 B.C. to the Northern Kingdom of ancient Israel who with her Ten Tribes were scattered by the Assyrians into the "North” land of Western Europe, Great Britain and Scandinavia, who inherited by virtue of birth and bloodline, the right to invoke "the Promises made to the Fathers."

Except for a very few cases, every freedom-loving patriot in modern times (regardless of his birth nation) has already tasted of the blessings which flow from the "just and holy principles" upon which America was founded. Could it be that America was designed to be much more than simply another political entity among many?  Could it be that her founders understood and endeavored to teach the rising generations exactly what it would take to preserve those blessings forever?

As a nation we have both honored and breached the Covenant at various times in our history and have been blessed or suffered as a result, this book is written to leave all without excuse. We have within our grasp the freedom to sacred and ominous power to choose to honor or to violate the terms of the Covenant and surely as a nation, we will live or die by the consequences of that choice. [full quote taken from here]

So really, this is nothing new. British Israelism has been around for along time; indeed, it was a touchstone teaching for the former Worldwide Church of God, through their founder Herbert Armstrong (the WWCG has now renounced their teacher's former teaching, and have become quite orthodox under the new name Grace Communion International---indeed, much of their leadership follows the teaching of Thomas Torrance, and I have some of them reading right here at the blog :-). 

Anyway, Glenn Beck and Tim Ballard are out to lunch; we all know that the Apostle Paul taught that the 'Seed' and promise was all in reference to Jesus Christ (not any lost nations, or even one nation); at least that's what Paul clearly argues in his little epistle to the Galatians. 

Glenn Beck and Tim Ballard need to:

1. Convert to orthodox, historic Christianity.
2. Read their Bibles for all their worth.
3. Take some Christ-centered biblical interpretation classes (hermeneutics).
4. And repent of their divinization of America, and recognize that Jesus alone is the homoousion person who brings nature and grace together in his one divine person!  

Here is the trailer video to Ballard's book: