Proof-texting
A common insult hurled around by many Christians, especially those of the emergent variety, is that conservative evangelicals tend to 'proof-text' in their rhetoric. Mr Conservative beef-boy laces his argument with numerous references, and draws rather direct lines between his position and 2 Opinion X:X, and the tattooed emergent replies with the exclamation: 'You are just proof-texting!'. I'm sure many of us have seen something like this at some stage.
Not unsurprisingly, conservatives throw their arms up in frustration. 'What do you mean, "proof-texting"? We are simply showing our position is scriptural!'
To be honest, I sometimes suspect not just a few in the emergent community don't really know what they mean either with their accusation, and fall back on this nugget when scriptures seem to oppose their view or support their debate partner. Or am I being too cynical?
One blogger has defined proof texting as follows (do also have a look at his helpful statement of faith):
"By proof-texting I mean the use of individual scripture texts to produce apparent support for a doctrinal position without adequate regard for the contexts of the individual texts which may indicate differences and nuances"
This is fair enough, but I want to suggest a definition that doesn't just emphasise the context of the text but also that of the reader. I propose that proof-texting is:
"the appropriation of scripture in the service of an argument that reads the text in terms of an inappropriate (even if scripturally laced) narrative or social discourse, in such a way that loses sight of this fact and thinks the scripture merely 'interprets itself'"
Of course, this implies that a text is thereby read in such a manner that loses sight also of its original context. But what makes proof-texting so difficult for many to see is that it is also about their assumed narrative or social discourse through which they read scripture. Many conservatives have a very scripturally sounding social discourse or narrative, with bible language abounding. So, when they read scripture, it is used to decorate this pre-given, this assumed narrative concerning the meaning of faith, Christ, and the church. This is done even though assumed their social discourse is profoundly unbiblical in its wider concerns and shape. The failure of much conservative evangelical rhetoric is not that they use scripture in their arguments, but that their assumed 'Christmas tree' upon which they often decoratively hang scripture, is in desperate need of reformation.
One conservative (whose sometimes ugly rhetoric is horribly and transparently guilty of proof-texting as I define it), frustrated by some emergent rhetoric, goes as far to claim that Jesus used the proof-texting method in his teaching! Of course, this misunderstands the point being made by intelligent emergent chaps, and the nature of Jesus handling of scripture.
This definition in mind, I would even claim that proof-texting is the most burdensome problem in conservative evangelical rhetoric.
posted by Chris Tilling @ 12:09 AM
13 comments
13 Comments:
um... social discourse? What is that exactly? I have a fuzzy idea, but a good definition would help. Thanks!
Hi Levi,
For a useful discussion on the nature of social discourse and what it means at a very down to earth level in the church, have a look at this.
Wiki, under the heading "The Social Conception of Discourse" has something useful to say (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse).
"Of course, this misunderstands the point being made by intelligent emergent chaps, and the nature of Jesus handling of scripture."
I'm afriad you have it backward there Chris ol' bean. My background is in apologetics and counter-cult evangelism and I am quite aware of the negative side of "proof-texting."
Sadly, what I often run into with these lofty and O so erudite "Emergent chaps" are the same arguments advanced as unbelieving skeptics.
It is this regard I point out that Jesus uses Scripture (text) to demonstrate (prove) His points from God's Word. Therefore, "proof-texting" in context is exactly what the genuine Christian must do.
And as Dr. Walter Martin used to say, another intelligent chap with four earned degrees, "No one has the right to call themselves a Christian and not hold the same high view of Scripture that Jesus Christ has."
This is my point.
It seems to me that George Lindbeck's postliberal approach to a typological reading of Scripture may be useful here. He writes:
Typology does not make scriptural contents into metaphors for extrascriptural realities, but the other way around. It does not suggest, as is often said in our day, that believers find their stories in the Bible, but rather that they make the story of the Bible their story.... Intratextual theology redescribes reality within the scriptural framework rather than translating Scripture into extrascriptural categories... It is the text, so to speak, which absorbs the world, rather than the world the text.
It seems to me that many emergents and conservatives (and dare I say some apologists and people with multiple degrees!) are guilty of making the same mistake and allowing extrascriptural categories to dictate the discussion -- which is precisely why Chris' point that we need to be just as aware of our own context as the context of scripture, is so important (and as I have already been trying to make this point, it is good to find an ally in such a reputable blogger as Chris).
I think you're definitely right that many people shout "proof-texting!" more as a reaction to the rhetorical style of peppering argument with scriptural quotation than as an objection to some specific misappropriation of scripture. In fact, I think the proof-texter and the person that blindly accuses them are both more concerned with rhetorical strategies ("winning") than actual argument.
The dangerous thing about calling "proof-text!" willy-nilly is that there are many cases in which a short biblical quotation can stand for a theme that runs throughout scripture; for example, quoting Genesis 1:1 in support of arguing that God created the world could hardly be said to be proof-texting. Of course, using the same verse to argue for creation ex nihilo is problematic since Genesis is not clear on that much more precise point.
The blog you linked to has laid out quite well what the usual types of proof-texting look like. But to me, at least, the line often appears much finer and the balance more delicate, especially with scriptural authors.
Chris,
I agree with your revamped definition of "prooftexting", but would you agree that, on the terms of that definition, Karl Barth comes out as much more of a prooftexter than any modern evangelical?
John C. Poirier
Chris,
I like this discussion very much. Part of the problem is that the vast majority of conservative evangelicals always get difficult topics presented to them as a sound bite. Time constraints mean that little more than a bumper sticker worth of content can be used to present a serious topic, so proof texting is the only thing they will ever see, no matter how scholarly or inadequate the presenter.
Hi Ken,
"It is this regard I point out that Jesus uses Scripture (text) to demonstrate (prove) His points from God's Word. Therefore, "proof-texting" in context is exactly what the genuine Christian must do".
But this is the point which intelligent Emerging chaps would heartily agree with - the necerssity to be scriptural. Hence my definition. It is not merely about a static "high view" of scripture, but how it is used in arguments.
Thanks for your comment.
Dan,
Great quote, thanks. I needed to re-read it to get it!
Hi Charles,
“The dangerous thing about calling "proof-text!" willy-nilly is that there are many cases in which a short biblical quotation can stand for a theme that runs throughout scripture”
A terrific point.
Hi John,
What a fantastic question – it has really made me think!
“would you agree that, on the terms of that definition, Karl Barth comes out as much more of a prooftexter than any modern evangelical?”
I would have to say ‘no’ for two reasons. First the slippery one. I note the important word ‘inappropriate’ in my definition. Barth’s focus, while not perfect, is itself highly exegetical – as is his framework – deeply Pauline. I.e. not just ‘scripturally laced’. Second, I don’t think Barth ‘loses sight’ of the fact I mentioned in the definition as conservatives do. He, when rewriting his Romans commentary (if I remember rightly), was also giving lectures on the theological reading of scripture. I think he knew what he was doing – it wasn’t the direct equation from bible to modern debate that many conservatives think it is. But there is something to you r question, especially the ‘interpreting itself’ aspect! Barth would deny it speaks for itself, though. God. God speaks.
Hi Looney,
I know what you mean, but I think Green and Baker make a good job of avoiding ‘proof-texting’ in a short book on the atonement, for example.
Chris,
I have to disagree with you. When I read Barth's commentary on Romans, I couldn't find anywhere where Barth was saying the same thing Paul was saying, in spite of his insistence, in one of the forewords, that he was thinking alongside Paul. That's why Barth is the first person I think of whenever I hear the term "prooftexting". That's been my impression of Barth throughout all of his work. I can't understand how people (like Hays) can refer to Barth as a careful exegete. He's the furthest thing from it.
I have problems with this thing they're now calling "theological exegesis", as it all seems to begin from a Barthian premise, and to define out of existence a lot of exegesis that is profoundly theological. (E.g., on the terms of how "theological exegesis" is now defined, works like Dodd's *The Apostolic Preaching and Its Development* or Meyer's *Christus Faber* do not count!)
Hi John,
"I can't understand how people (like Hays) can refer to Barth as a careful exegete. He's the furthest thing from it."
Furthest?
We may have to agree to disagree on that one!
Historical/social context is naturally important, but I would like to see more emphasis on "canonical context." If we assume 1) that the process of writting, collecting, and canonizing the individual books into one Bible was guided by the Holy Spirit over a period of decades, even centuries and that 2) this work was for the equiping of the Church and 3) Jesus promised his Holy Spirit to the entire Church to lead them into all truth
Then it seems we can say several things:
1) the various letters and books of the Bible do have an historical/social context that will shed light on their meaning, but they also now have a new canonical context - a new place in a web of relationships to the other canonical books of the Bible (and this is the work of the whole Spirit-guided church, so it must be true). This new canonical context informs interpretation as much as does historical/social context
2) "canon" extends not only to the books of the Bible but also to the other "canons" of the whole/ecumenical Church - canonical Creeds/Councils; canon law, etc. Where there is a consensus here of the whole/ecumenical Church in these other canons and in the interpretation and practice of "canonical life" (if I may coin a phrase here) rooted in this matrix of canonical teaching of the catholic/ecumenical Church (and by "ecumenical" I am talking cross-culturally, cross-denominationally, and across history here) then we see the work of the truth-revealing Spirit guiding scriptural interpretation
at this point, I think we can and should reference scripture (and with it, the whole interpretative and lifestyle tradition that is associated with it) to support our arguments. This is why people who use such a method will shift seemlessly between "the Scripture says" and "the Church" "St. So-in-so teaches" because they are in the first place appealing to Scripture and its interpretative tradition, and in the second place making explicit the content of that tradition
Those who are enthralled with post-modern theories of hermeneutics I think will utterly fail to hear the voice of the Spirit that in fact was guiding the Church a long time before Western-oriented thinkers invented post-modernity
Where do the scriptures say to interpret a meaning by it's context?
Do the scriptures not say, man shall live by EVERY word that proceeds out of the mouth of God?
Do not the scriptures teach they are suitable for correction and that the Holy Spirit is the one who interprets?
Finally, when Satan came against Jesus in His 40 day fast, did Jesus respond with proof texting?
"Where do the scriptures say to interpret a meaning by it's context?"
Unfortunately, the scriptures do not come with an appendix about how to handle different genres of scripture, such as poetry, Torah, Gospels, etc. That is the task of hermeneutics, one guided by the church tradition which selected these texts as canon in the first place.
"Do the scriptures not say, man shall live by EVERY word that proceeds out of the mouth of God?"
Yes, but what this means is the question.
"Do not the scriptures teach they are suitable for correction and that the Holy Spirit is the one who interprets?"
"suitable for correction"? Yes and amen!
"the Holy Spirit is the one who interprets" - yes, but the Holy Spirit also works through minds that are trained and learned. Careful of a false either / or there.
"Finally, when Satan came against Jesus in His 40 day fast, did Jesus respond with proof texting?"
NO! Have a look at the commentaries which will explain where Jesus got all of his rejoinders from, and why this is the case.
All the best,
Chris
Post a Comment
<< Home