Sunday, April 12, 2009

Applying Reason to Scripture

What attitude is implied in using reason to interpret scripture?

In our struggle to understand "reason trumping revelation", or "reason trumping church authority", and whether reason is exalted by the FFs, or whether they were humble in applying reason as the only tool available to them, we come to interpretation of, e.g., Jefferson's advice to Carr, cited both by myself and by Jon Rowe.

What attitude is implied in this passage, and others more or less like it?

I'll not repeat the quote; it is available in full here. The question before us is, does this advice exalt reason?

I've already tried arguing the point directly; let me now try arguing by analogy. Saying that we must apply our reason to interpreting scripture is like saying we must use hammers (of the appropriate size) to drive nails. They just are the right tools for the job.

Does this exalt hammers? Yes, in a very limited sense: they are being elevated above other tools for the job of driving nails. Hammers are exalted above various expedients for that one specific purpose. But note two limitations, one kind of obvious, one less so: (1) hammers are not being exalted above other items, like hacksaws, or poems, or helicopters, each is (presumably) superior to hammers in some other context; (2) hammers are not being exalted above nails.

In the same sense, saying that we must apply reason in interpreting scripture only exalts reason above expedients that could be applied to the same task; and it does not exalt reason above scripture itself, let alone exalting reason above revelation (keeping scripture and revelation separate, as we must, at least for the purposes of this discussion).

But what are those expedients that could be applied to the same purpose? I have suggested before that church authority is the principal alternative to reason; there was, in the founders' time, or at least in their imaginations, a danger that church hierarchies would usurp the task of interpreting scripture on behalf of their congregations, as perhaps occurred in Europe (I don't want to get into denomination-bashing about whether the charge is true or not, I'll settle for the notion that the founders had that concern).

If we return to Jefferson's advice to Carr, we see that this sort of exaltation of reason above church authority is exactly what Jefferson had in mind. In the very beginning, Jefferson points out the alternative to application of reason, namely crouching servility. Now this begs the question: crouching beneath whom, and servile to whom exactly? This is clearly a reference to some sort of authority, and who but the church could he have in mind? The House of Burgesses? Not likely.

But Jefferson underscores the point when he urges his ward to study not only scripture as it is found in the accepted text of the Bible, but also the apocryphal gospels. Why would he give this advice? Precisely because, from a historical point of view, what separates the writings in the Bible from other writings similar in topic but excluded from the Bible is the authoritative finding of the church. To a man who rejects church authority in interpreting scripture, it only makes sense to also reject church authority in deciding what writings are scriptural to begin with.

Jefferson is clearly exalting reason above church authority, which I have identified as part of his unorthodox (indeed anti-orthodox) American Christianity.

But what of exalting reason above scripture? Does he do that as well? My first answer to this has been, and remains, that the question is ill-posed, relying on a category error. Reason and scripture are not comparable.

But if that answer is too glib for you, then lets avoid the category error and return to a related question: does scripture have a special (irrational) place for Jefferson (and, by extension, for the founders more generally), or can it be relegated by reason to the ash-bin of history, with books of science and philosophy recommended instead as the only proper reading for the enlightenment man of reason? Surely a few founders thought so, but ultimately very few, and apparently none of the "key" founders.

Look in length at Jefferson's advice to Carr, see the reverence for scripture that is not based on any reasonable criterion. There is, first, Jefferson's complete concession of the Christian Nation hypothesis in two sentences: "You will naturally examine first the religion of your own country. Read the bible then...". Of course Jefferson urges a critical reading of the Bible, but it is still the "religion of [the] country." But let's not make too much of that.

The question remains: is scripture special? Is Jesus special? The answers would seem to be affirmative. For what other book of ancient history would Jefferson recommend such diligent study of? What other famous person must we form our personal assessment of? Did any founder ever earnestly insist that their children study, weigh and consider, every superhuman feat claimed in the epic of Gilgamesh, or form a considered opinion of the merits of Gilgamesh? Of course not. Such detailed study itself would be irrational. One of the things that we normally call on reason to do is to decide for us is what is worth spending our time on.

In repeatedly telling Carr that "you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides", Jefferson is conceding more to scripture than a modern man of reason would concede to Gilgamesh, or any other ancient epic. By modern standards, they do not deserve a "fair hearing", but a skeptical one, or else no hearing at all.

For Jefferson, reason is exalted as a tool, but scripture is exalted as source material, and it is the application of the former to the latter that will lead to some magnificent sculpture (pardon the attempt at metaphor). Each is exalted above the alternatives: reason rather than church authority, and scripture and Jesus rather than Gilgamesh and his epic. Note also in Jefferson's advice to Carr the degree to which reason is secondary to conscience, our God-given "sense of right and wrong", at least in moral matters.

All this is entirely in keeping with Luther at Worms: "Unless I shall be convinced by the testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear reason ... I neither can nor will make any retraction, since it is neither safe nor honorable to act against conscience." Reason, scripture, conscience, all exalted; each supreme in their proper application.

26 comments:

King of Ireland said...

Good post that really made me think. However, I see one glaring hole: If church authority decides what is scripture how is it any different than scripture? Or maybe a better question: Who decides what Scripture is?

I am a born-again Christian for sure but have been doubting a lot of church dogma. A test for myself is this? If what the Bible says does not seem logical then maybe my interpretation, traditional views of what it says, or something else is off. I was part of what I now consider a cult and got a lot of bad teaching. But I kind of always did this as far as parts of the Bible that seemed to contradict each other anyway but now am open to other forms of knowledge and revelation.

Most of the time, it comes down for me to the wrong reading of the original language or the wrong historical context. Another problem for most is realizing the Bible is many different types of literature. It is not just a history book. Anyway, have you ever thought about what scripture is? Why is it special revelation? Or Why not?

Our Founding Truth said...

Excellent Kristo! You definitely make me think on concepts a little more. Happy Easter! He is Risen!

On the post below, I make a statement I want to make here; that this "reason v revelation" contest is relevant in our National context as well.

When the government puts reason down on paper, we call it law. Hamilton, quoting Blackstone says "Human laws are null and void of contrary to the Divine Law [Revealed Law]

That should seal the deal that scripture is supreme. The only way to check if reason is not contrary to the Divine Law is, check it with scripture. So, reason is the first revelation to man, but only in position, not in priority.

Scripture is the measuring rod for "Right Reason."

Tom Van Dyke said...

Well, if I may jump in here, Kristo covers this per Jefferson's advice to his nephew---read everything for yourself, including the non-church approved "apocryphal" gospels. [The Gospel of Mary, of Peter, of Thomas, whatever.] This gets you out from under ecclesiastical authority, and Kristo often points out that anti-ecclesiasticism---anti-clericalism, anti-papism, anti-priests, anti-church and ministers---was a defining feature of Founding-era Protestantism.

So too, you echo what was happening at the Founding, where the original Greek texts were just coming into widespread access. Was the King James Version completely accurate? If not, one could reject parts of the KJV without rejecting "the Bible."

"Special revelation" is a term Aquinas uses for the scriptures and their redounding theology, to delineate it from natural law, what he calls "general revelation," available and understandable to people like Aristotle---or any man---using his "right reason."

Kristo, as a note, I believe Virginians and Jefferson in particular were fond of calling Virginia "my country." But since his letter to Peter Carr was written in 1787 and Virginia's Statute of Religious Freedom passed in 1786, your point still holds, albeit since Jefferson called himself a "Christian," only by its fingernails.

Tom Van Dyke said...

OFT:

a) You're hijacking Kristo's thread. This is off topic.

b) It's a bum quote, a paraphrase of Hamilton quoting Blackstone in The Farmer Refuted.

c) You added [Divine Law] as the Bible.

1)You interfered with the quote, by adding your own interpretation to it. A no-no. It doesn't read [Divine Law] anywhere.

2) The actual quote is referring to natural law, not the Bible.

d) Right reason must be applied to scripture or else we're all robots doing what the clerics tell us scripture says. This was the problem the Founding era had, and the King of Ireland here, and why Protestantism got started in the first place.

C'mon, man. You've been so good lately and I don't like doing this. I'd prefer you delete your above comment, so I can delete this one. Kristo did a good and thoughtful post, and it deserves its own air.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

I agree with King of Ireland. The Church authorities didn't even agree over which books to "canonize", so the East and Western Church sanction different canon. And the Protestant doesn't accept the acpocrapha...

So, scripture cannot be the epitome of truth...and the tradition of the Church 'interpreted' the text...and then Protestism couldn't agree as to view on sacraments, etc. It is a matter of IF one wants to believe, or have faith...as reason can be useful to support one's beliefs, but reason seems to come to no "conclusions" about "faith"....as even the text, or tradition have to be accepted a authoratative and taken "on faith".

Kristo Miettinen said...

He is risen indeed!

King, thanks for your comments. I wish you well in your Christian walk.

I'll not offer an answer to your question, for this is something for you to prayerfully consider on your own, but I would point out that our Founding Fathers would have asked quite the similar question, and then moved on in the fullness of mature consideration to what I call the unorthodox American Christian answer.

I would also point out that notable Christians, such as Martin Luther, taught a "core scripture", a reduced set of books to recommend to those seeking to understand Christianity, the core being sufficient to learn all the basic doctrines. I would add to that that Thomas Jefferson, with his razoblade, made a different yet equally useful "core bible", that retains its Christian character quite well. Christianity is very resilient to disagreement over what books to read, or what passages within those books to read.

OFT,

It's not uniform everywhere in the colonies (emerging states) on the position of scripture as the foundation or confirmation of civil law. Jefferson and Adams corresponded on Connecticut having scripture as their common law, and the original colonial constitution of Pennsylvania is similarly written, but Virginia was less scripturocentric. Blackstone was revered, yes; but passages like the one you cite were hard to apply and often ignored. We are, above all, a nation of praxis. Our laws are whatever we act on, not what we have written down.

Hi Tom!

As I pointed out, I don't want to get too much mileage from that particular point. But it is a cute detail, and often cute details are the only solid evidence we have to work with. And yes, you are correct, that there was a transition from thinking of the states as nations to thinking of the union as a nation. I used to date the transition to the civil war and reconstruction, but in the last few years while researching this "Christian Nation" dispute (until 2007 I had never heard of the topic) I have been reconsidering exactly how much cross-colony national spirit had been around already at (and before) the revolution. It has taken me by surprise.

Hi Angie!

The founders would have disagreed with you. They saw no difficulty mining scripture for ultimate truth despite disagreements around the edges of which set of books to mine. As I pointed out above to King, the Christian message is pretty resilient to scriptural disagreement.

jimmiraybob said...

Kristo, What would be the source of the FF's knowledge of the Epic of Gilgamesh?

I suspect that if they were alive today, with what we've learned from archeological discoveries since the late 19the century, their interest in ancient Sumerian-Babylonian religion/myth would be of some interest to them and they, specifically Jefferson, very well might have spent some time and effort to note the parallels with Biblical stories of creation and the flood, etc..

King of Ireland said...

Kristo stated:

I'll not offer an answer to your question, for this is something for you to prayerfully consider on your own, but I would point out that our Founding Fathers would have asked quite the similar question, and then moved on in the fullness of mature consideration to what I call the unorthodox American Christian answer."

So you are saying that their is some sort of Transcendant Truth? Then what keeps movies, books, and other forms of information from containing that same truth. I have heard, and once believed and maybe still do, of special revelation that is in the Scriptures and general revelation that can be found other places. I would say anything that Jesus quoted from the Old Testament or prophecies are safe and anything that quotes him in the New is safe. Anything that jives within this safety net would be up for debate.

Our Founding Truth said...

Tom: ) You're hijacking Kristo's thread. This is off topic.

b) It's a bum quote, a paraphrase of Hamilton quoting Blackstone in The Farmer Refuted.

c) You added [Divine Law] as the Bible
.

The philosophers, including Wilson's inspiration, Richard Hooker, universally understood The Divine Law to be the Law and the Gospel:

"The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures."

-Blackstone, Commentaries.

1)You interfered with the quote, by adding your own interpretation to it. A no-no. It doesn't read [Divine Law] anywhere.>

The brackets indicate clarification only, as most people don't understand what the Divine Law is.

Kristo, if Blackstone was ignored, why did the United States Senate browse his commentaries for instruction? They obviously believed it was important. Furthermore, Justice Iredell said Blackstone was consulted when they formed the Bill of Rights.

Jonathan Rowe said...

The Founders had a love hate relationship with Blackstone. As rationalists (which I am defining as someone who uses his reason to "discern" what is truth or valuable), they picked and choose from him what they cast away what they didn't like.

Blackstone certainly was not sacrosanct.

bpabbott said...

OFT/Jim/Ray, regarding your (fraudulent?) Blackstone quote, can you provide a reference to support your claim ... or are those below sufficient?

----------------------------------
The most familiar and perhaps the most influential presentation of natural law conception is to be found in Blackstone's Commentaries, where the sacredness of the higher law is presented as follow:

"Man, considered as a creater, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator. . . . This will of his maker is called the law of nature. . . . This law of nature, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately and immediately, from this original. . . . Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these . . . nay, if any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we are bound to transgress that human law, or else we offend both the natural and the divine."
----------------------------------
The American doctrine of judicial supremacy; By Charles Grove Haines"This law of nature, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times, no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, meidately or immediately, from this original." --(William Blackstone, 1765, _Commentaries On The Laws Of England_, Book I, Sec 2, No. 41)

Angie Van De Merwe said...

bpabbott,
What do you mean by "divine law", as I don't believe there is "divine" law.
The law is how one constructs societies. It was understood in the past to be divine by certain sects, such as the Puritans. But, it is not accepted today, as a whole, unless you speak of fundamentalists or evangelicals...Evolution has "done away" with the "supernaturalistic understanding" of laws and forms of government.

bpabbott said...

Angie asked: bpabbott, What do you mean by "divine law"

To the best of my memory, I've not used the term.

I'm questioning whether those commenting/posting are interpreting the term in a personal context or as those who used it intended (not that Tom has used in improperly, but I'd like to understand thoughts better), ... and also questioning the honesty of one who is fraudulently representing its use by historical figure(s).

Angie remaked: "Evolution has "done away" with the "supernaturalistic understanding" of laws and forms of government."

hmmm ... I'm confused ... Evolution of what? ... are you speaking of the evolution of life that is responsible for the origin of species? ... or evolution of human societies? ... The latter, I hope.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

Would not the evolution of our species also impact the evolution of societies? Civilized humans do continue to expand knowledge and understanding of the human species and the environment, which impacts the society at large....

Tom Van Dyke said...

That's modernism, Angie. The Founders weren't quite "modern" yet, a fact for which some of us are thankful.

Modernity disputes natural law, which is, as Blackstone puts it,

"binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times."

Yesterday, today, tomorrow, in the Founding era, and in Plato and Aristotle's, too, here there and everywhere. You could call it "transcendent" truth, but transcendence is not necessary: you can restrict it to this world, and many pre-modern thinkers did.

Ben, most of Blackstone is on "human" law. The natural law [Blackstone uses "law of nature" interchangably here, but not all thinkers do] is described above. However,

" No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this [law of nature]; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."

As for scripture, Blackstone says,

"This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine providence; which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, at sundry times and in diverse manners, to discover and enforce its laws by an immediate and direct revelation.

The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy Scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity. But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason, in its present corrupted state; since we find that, until they were reavealed, they were hid from the wisdom of the ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the same original with those of the law of nature, so their intrinisic obligation is of equal strength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system, which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law."

Italics mine. Blackstone places revelation in superiority to natural law, which is the province of reason. ["Right" reason, of course.]

But as Jon Rowe points out, Blackstone wasn't 100% embraced by 100% of the Founders, which is why I wanted to postpone getting to him until we at least have an agreement on what "natural law" means, natural law being something they all agreed on. [Even Adams and Jefferson, if you dig a bit.]

Jonathan Rowe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jonathan Rowe said...

Also note when Blackstone says

These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature,... [Bold mine.]

Blackstone is not disputing that the "law of nature" defines as what man discovers from "reason" (if you read the passage that I think came right before, that's HOW he defines it). But rather is saying once you "find" the "natural law" from reason, upon comparison with revealed law, you see revealed law (scripture) reaches the same results as natural law (reason). For instance natural law (reason) tells us, "don't murder," and then compare that to what the scripture says, and viola, right there in the Ten Commands, it says "don't murder."

To spell it out more clearly, "Don't murder" is part of the natural law discovered by reason unaided by scripture. Then, UPON COMPARISON, we see PART of scripture also holds "don't murder." Since "don't murder" is part of both the natural AND revealed law, that is the PART of the revealed law that is "upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature."

This doesn't change the fact that natural law means what is discovered from reason. And parts of scripture are in fact NOT part of the "original law of nature."

jimmiraybob said...

Angie Van De Merwe, You may be conflating concepts in biological evolution, a scientific theory regarding changes over time in populations of biological entities, with social Darwinism, a pseudo-scientific concept that is prone to catastrophic societal abuse (i.e., racism, eugenics, genocide, imperialism, economic exploitation of "lesser" members of a society).

"Survival of the fittest" in the biological evolution sense refers to successful occupation of an ecological niche and implies no value judgment; it doesn't mean the biggest, the baddest, the smartest or more knowledgeable - the cockroach, the rat and the microbes in our gut are major evolutionary success stories regardless of the "ew" factor.

TVD, it depends on where you set the pre-modern/modern goal posts. Science, certainly as being developed in the 17th-18th centuries, is considered by some* as posing the "modern" threat to traditional conservative religious dominance. Strains of biological evolutionary as well as social Darwinist thought predate Darwin himself and many of the "key" founders where well aware of scientific knowledge, not only of their day but into antiquity. And certainly the Enlightenment is coincident with a newly emerging "modern" understanding of the sciences and a reliance on material naturalism. Science, and modernism, was not outside the perview of the founders and their awareness of what constituted the national interest of the day:

George Washington, State of the Union, January 8, 1790 -
Nor am I less persuaded that you will agree with me in opinion that there is nothing which can better deserve your patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness. In one in which the measures of government receive their impressions so immediately from the sense of the community as in ours it is proportionably essential.

Obligatory Ben Franklin as scientist link.

*Karen Armstrong, although I'm not sure if this idea is from her pre- or post-advocacy phase.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Science, certainly as being developed in the 17th-18th centuries, is considered by some* as posing the "modern" threat to traditional conservative religious dominance.Jim, science posed and poses no threat to the concept of "natural law." It's addressed in the Rothbard essay I posted. [Murray Rothbard was an atheist, BTW.]

"Traditional," "Conservative," and "religious" are somewhat related, but since we modern people like Angie regard those terms as being antiquated and disgusting, and represent what we have evolved beyond and trashcanned, I prefer not to get into it for now.

Your answer on "evolution" to Angie is apt, JRB. I meself don't think we are any more biologically evolved than Plato and Aristotle. Their problems remain our problems.

Kristo Miettinen said...

JRB,

The founders, to varying degrees, were fairly accomplished classicists. I enjoy reading Adams and Jefferson presenting each other with their efforts to translate obscure Greek poets into english... the point doesn't depend on Gilgamesh specifically, you could just as well think about Hercules or any other mythical figure. The point remains, they would never give the advice that Jefferson gave to Carr, with respect to any other figure of antiquity.

King,

Nothing says you can't find revelation in nature, in the goodness of your neighbor, in your own unexpected benevolent impulses, etc. God is reaching out to all of us in innumerable ways. But scripture is important as a record of how the first Christians, who understood Christianity directly through the ministry of Christ, heard and preserved the message, the Word if you will.

OFT,

I'm not saying all of Blackstone was ignored, only that individual passages could be, and were, often honored less in practice thatn others. Blackstone was useful, and used, but not authoritative in every jot and tittle.

Jon,

You need to use a different word than "rationalist", that word is too well established in philosophy. Leibniz was a rationalist, Locke was not. In fact, you need to think about whether you have discovered a descriptor of any value at all.

Angie Van De Merwe said...

scripture was written within a tribalistic paradigm. Tribal societies are primitive in understanding "how things work" (science), therefore, they are fatalistic (providence).

Providence understands history as God's personal and intervention in history. This is not the view of evolution, which undermines scripture as a whole.

But, it is not just natural science that has undermined what has been understood to be "Christian understanding", it is also biblical scholarship. The text is written within various contexts, over thousands of years, so there is no "wholistic understanding" of the text. There is even dispute as to whether the text is historical, mythological, and where these intertwine...

So, there is some substance to a "better" culture for human flourishing, which is democracy, and not tribalism. Anthropologists would not make these values judgemnts, as their interest is in culture itself, so culture has values in itself. But, one's culture affects how one understands everything and it is best to understand that tribal cultures do no nor can not be dealt with in a modern paradigm (which is a lower level of moral development)...

Jonathan Rowe said...

"The point remains, they would never give the advice that Jefferson gave to Carr, with respect to any other figure of antiquity."

?!?

He says in that very letter read the Bible like you would read Livy or Tacitus.

Our Founding Truth said...

Kristo:I'm not saying all of Blackstone was ignored, only that individual passages could be, and were, often honored less in practice thatn others. Blackstone was useful, and used, but not authoritative in every jot and tittle.

No one is accepted in every jot and tittle. James Madison was overjoyed at Blackstone's Commentaries, and to my knowledge, Wilson corrected him on some points, but not on the Natural Law. I could safely say, besides Jesus Christ, the framers viewed Blackstone as the most influential person there was. The framers busted out his commentaries to form the Bill of Rights, he has been referenced more than any other human being in courts, and his commentaries were used at every law school by the framers.

I understand not everything he said was gospel, but I think his views on Natural Law were universally accepted.

Raven said...

If you truly applied reason to scripture, none of you wold bother with the horseshit! Reason is to blow off scripture since it is worthless...proven to be worthless.

Jonathan Rowe said...

Blackstone was an English Tory who stood for exactly what America rebelled against. To elevate him over Locke and to fair to recognize the FF's love/hate, lukewarm feelings for Blackstone is laughable to say the least.

But this is coming from someone who views Baron Von Steuben, not even a Founding Father!, as more important than Madison.

Kristo Miettinen said...

Jon,

TJ doesn't say of Livy or Tacitus that we must form a personal opinion of them or their teachings, let alone their relevance to our personal relationship with God.

TJ sets Carr the task of coming to grips with Jesus one way or another, in a way that neither he nor any other founder would recommend a relative had to come to grips with Gilgamesh or Hercules, or even Cicero, Livy, Tacitus, Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle.