Progressives, in other words, also cherry pick Scripture and enslave it to ideology. The benefit of the present volume, though, is that it shows just how widespread that practice is among Evangelicals. The problem, however, is that eisegesis is inappropriate no matter who does it.
See Synopsis of Misusing Scripture: What Are Evangelicals Doing with the Bible?
See Misusing Scripture: What Are Evangelicals Doing with the Bible? Edited by Mark Elliott, Kenneth Atkinson, and Robert Rezetko. Routledge New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies. London: Routledge, 2023.
By Jim West
Lecturer in Biblical Studies and Church History
Ming Hua Theological College,
Hong Kong
August 2023
The editors of a new volume titled ‘Misusing Scripture: What are Evangelicals Doing with the Bible?’ describe their work thusly:
Misusing Scripture offers a thorough and critical evaluation of American evangelical scholarship on the Bible. This strand of scholarship exerts enormous influence on the religious beliefs and practices, and even cultural and political perspectives, of millions of evangelical Christians in the United States and worldwide. The book brings together a diverse array of authors with expertise on the Bible, religion, history, and archaeology to critique the nature and growth of “faith-based” biblical scholarship.
Rightly do they address the way in which Evangelicals misuse Scripture. I can only hope that there will be a companion volume forthcoming titled ‘Misusing Scripture: What are Progressives Doing with the Bible?’
After all, the misuse of Scripture for ideological and other reasons isn’t exactly confined to the Evangelical camp. Take, for instance, the often heard ‘Jesus was a refugee’ during the migrant crisis on the southern U.S. border. Without explanation or even exegetical understanding, Progressives hijacked the story of Jesus’ fleeing to Egypt to escape the murderous intentions of Herod. What they ignore so blithely is that Matthew has constructed the story not because it happened, but because it assists his telling of the Gospel story by identifying Jesus with the people of Israel, who also ‘departed Egypt’. But blathering about Jesus being a refugee serves a purpose for Progressives: it gives them ‘scriptural warrant’ to foist their ideology on policy, in the same way that Evangelicals seek ‘scriptural warrant’ for their hatemongering.
Progressives, in other words, also cherry pick Scripture and enslave it to ideology. The benefit of the present volume, though, is that it shows just how widespread that practice is among Evangelicals. The problem, however, is that eisegesis is inappropriate no matter who does it.
Evangelicals in America in the present era seem to delight in both ignorance of the biblical text and in manipulating it for political advantage. It has become, in their hands, little more than a political prop. So the examination of that simple fact begins with a couple of questions by the editors of ‘Misusing Scripture’:
Faith-based biblical scholarship: What is it? Is it legitimate? Is it possible?
The answer which eventually comes out of the washer of the essays which follow is no, no it is not legitimate, and it is not possible for it to be real scholarship either. Put simply, because presupposition rules Evangelical ‘exegesis’ (which is really nothing but eisegesis), it is illegitimate. But what interpreter isn’t ruled by presupposition? It is an absurdity to insist that Progressives are somehow immune to presupposition, somehow hovering over the bible like great spirits who are untouched by motives. Hector Avalos, to whom the volume is dedicated, was certainly a man driven by his own presuppositions and prejudices.
Years ago Graham Stanton wrote an essay titled Presuppositions in New Testament Criticism. There he opines
R Bultmann's comment is apposite: "Every exegesis that is guided by dogmatic prejudices does not hear what the text says, but only lets the latter say what it wants to hear." Neither the conservative nor the radical scholar can claim to be free from presuppositions. But this does not mean that the interpreter must attempt to become a neutral observer: on the contrary, empathy with the subject matter of the text is an essential presupposition. Before we take up this point in more detail, we must examine briefly the alternative approach: presuppositionless exegesis.
The volume containing the essay is available here. And is very much worth a look even today. Stanton’s work in particular offers a counterpoint to the present volume. And since most scholars at least wish to project the pretense of openness to differing viewpoints, readers of ‘Misusing Scripture’ should also read the balanced and scholarly opinions of people whose views differ from the present work’s contributors.
In any event it is Stanton’s comment Neither the conservative nor the radical scholar can claim to be free from presuppositions. But this does not mean that the interpreter must attempt to become a neutral observer: on the contrary, empathy with the subject matter of the text is an essential presupposition that I wish to focus in in relation to ‘Misusing’.
Frankly it doesn’t matter to me if people are empathetic to Scripture. I do, however, think they should be honest and state whether or not they believe Scripture to be ‘scriptural’ (normative) or not. If a person sees Scripture as normative they will read it in one way and those who do not see it as normative will read it in another way. Knowing their view on that simple question allows me to know beforehand their biases and being alert to them, I can make adjustments in their light.
Bultmann, for all his bad press, saw Scripture as normative. So did Stanton. Avalos did not. Knowing that, I know how to ‘read’ whatever it is that they say about this or that passage of the Bible.
So when I read ‘Misusing’ I do a little detective work about the contributors. Who are they, where do they teach, what have they published, and how do they see Scripture. In other words, I do with authors what I do with the the Bible- I try to figure out what the author is attempting to do.
Fortunately, ‘Misusing’ is quite up front with its purpose:
What is Misusing Scripture’s objective? While evangelicals may hold personal beliefs about the Bible and use it as they wish in their personal lives, many are alarmed by the pervasive and regrettable influence evangelical biblical scholarship has inside and outside the academy on the interpretation and use of the Bible.
‘Many’ is code for ‘us’, ‘we’, and ‘alarmed’ means ‘unhappy’, and ‘influence evangelical’ means ‘why can’t Progressives be more influential than Evangelicals’ and ‘outside the academy’ means ‘politically and ideologically’. In sum, the cards are on the table- We are alarmed that Evangelical scholarship gets a wider hearing than Progressive scholarship in the academic and political spheres, and we want to correct that. Because we want the kind of power that Evangelicals have to shape policies in politics.
This is made clear a little further on when our editors write
This book, however, deals with evangelical misuse of the Bible, and while evangelicals may act with sincere motives in their private and public spheres, it is nevertheless true—regardless of one’s take on some of their specific cultural, political, and legal postures and objectives—that their Bible-inspired agendas showcase many shortcomings in regard to biblical interpretation and application.
‘Bible inspired agendas’ are not unique to Evangelicals. Take, again, the refugee crisis where a passage of the Bible has been ripped from its theological and exegetical context to ‘prove’ an ideological point: to wit, Jesus was a refugee, so you should be nice to refugees. And to be sure, we should be nice to refugees, but if the Progressives were exegetically honest there are a lot of passages they could have drawn from to make that point, e.g., Matthew 25. But for them, as for Evangelicals, the point isn’t proper exegesis; it’s eisegesis in the service of ideology. It’s about power, and who wields it.
Evangelicals and Progressives are simply the same beast: groups of people driven by ideology to manipulate the meaning of the Bible for their own ends: the acquisition and maintenance of political and cultural power.
But I love this book. Genuinely. I love it because it shreds the lunacy of ideologically driven Evangelical scholarship. My concern is that it leaves Progressives untouched in spite of the fact that they deserve a shredding just as pronounced as the Evangelicals.
Eisegesis is misrepresentation. No matter whose camp is doing it. Evangelicals are blind to Evangelical ideology and Progressives are blind to Progressive ideology. And that’s the real problem. Misusing Scripture is widespread. And it should be called out wherever it is found.
Exegesis in service of ideology (whether political or theological) is eisegesis, pure and simple. And eisegetes aren’t scholars and eisegesis isn’t scholarship. So, if you’re going to rightly call out one camp, call out the other too.
I love this book. But it should have also included denunciations of Progressive eisegesis in service of Progressive ideology. That fact that it doesn’t is its great weakness. Its great failure. Its own admission that it too is just as ideologically driven as any Evangelical.
So, to end where we began; I look forward to the second volume by our editors wearing the title ‘Misusing Scripture: What are Progressives Doing with the Bible?’