Hermeneutics of Belief vs. Functional Atheism in Biblical Interpretation
This piece was inspired by a dialogue between Dr. Gaven Kerr and Dr. Ryan Mullins on the divine nature (you can find on YouTube). Their hermeneutical differences and approaches were fundamental, but they didn’t spell out how and why, they just compared and contrasted their approaches. This is my attempt to characterize a distinction I heard in their differences that I thought was potentially helpful for those who want to learn and read the Bible not only for knowledge’s sake, but for their faith and practice. Enjoy!
The task of interpreting the Bible has long been a field of inquiry where differing methodologies and underlying assumptions have led to diverse conclusions about the text’s meaning and significance. For example, it is not uncommon for a student in seminary, when learning the original languages of the Bible, like Greek or Hebrew, to have a disorienting experience with the text. It can be hard to know what the meaning is as you delve deeper into the languages because learning to read in different languages means disassociating one’s first principles, philosophy, theology, and worldview. The language and grammar are straightforward tasks. However, as one masters the text and/or gains some distance from an academic setting, those other perspectives can be better informed by the original languages, not hurt by it, if one is a good appropriator of their knowledge. In other words, good hermeneutics of the Bible is an art and science. Central to this discussion are two distinct hermeneutical approaches: one grounded in belief, often aligned with traditional Catholic heuristics, and another rooted in historical-critical methods, which may inadvertently lead to what I am going to term as “functional atheism” for the purposes of this piece. Here, I aim to delineate this distinction, explore the implications of it, and hopefully this explication helps individuals reflect on their own interpretive practices towards the Bible.
The historical-critical method is a scholarly approach developed during the Enlightenment that seeks to understand the Bible by situating it within its historical context. This involves analyzing the languages, cultures, and historical circumstances surrounding the text’s composition. The primary goal is to reconstruct the original meaning intended by the authors and the historical realities they addressed.
By focusing on empirical data and historical reconstruction, the historical-critical method can lead to a “functional atheism.” This does not imply that practitioners are atheists in belief, but their approach does not presuppose or necessitate belief in the divine nature that inspires the text (the Holy Spirit matters). For this method, the Bible is analyzed primarily as a product of human culture and historical processes, potentially sidelining its theological and spiritual dimensions.
Furthermore, when interpreters, even professional philosophers, use the historical-critical method as a primary approach, rather than a first philosophy approach like say a metaphysics first approach to the Bible , then they in some sense must apply limits to their model of God based on the historical reconstruction output by the historical-critical method, first approach. This often results in a constrained, but coherent, model of Gof that may not align with traditional theological concepts. As such, any reference to God derived from this method tends to be an artifact of the historical-critical process, inherently objectified, or objectifies God, and is likely to be detached from the robust first philosophy and theology found in traditions like Catholicism.
In contrast, a traditional Catholic heuristic integrates historical-critical insights within a framework of belief, emphasizing the Bible’s role as a living word inspired by God and integral to the faith community. This approach balances historical context with theological interpretation, viewing the text as referring to a transcendent and immanent reality—God.
This heuristic maintains a balance, ensuring that historical insights enhance rather than diminish theological interpretation. The text is read with an eye toward its spiritual and doctrinal significance, fostering a relationship with the Bible that is both intellectually rigorous and spiritually enriching.
A critical aspect of these approaches is their ultimate telos or goal. The historical-critical method, by its nature, tends toward a secular understanding of the text, focusing on historical accuracy and empirical coherence. In contrast, the traditional Catholic approach aims at deepening the reader’s relationship with God, guided by faith and informed by reason.
Consider the prophecies of a Messiah in the Old Testament. A purely historical-critical method might reconstruct these texts within the expectations and cultural context of ancient Israel, possibly concluding that the concept of a dying and rising Messiah like Jesus is foreign to these texts. This reconstruction could lead to a functional atheism where the text’s spiritual significance is overshadowed by its historical analysis.
On the other hand, a traditional Catholic heuristic reads these prophecies in light of Christ’s life and teachings, informed by the belief that Jesus himself provides the ultimate interpretive lens. This approach acknowledges the historical context but sees the fulfillment of these prophecies in Jesus, maintaining a referential understanding that points to God’s overarching plan.
The historical-critical method can also serve as an analogy or allegory for any other approach that seeks coherence to a humanistic end. For example, imagine a symposium of qualified readers from diverse backgrounds—such as clinical psychologists, artists specializing in symbolic interpretations, cultural commentators, historians, and biblical scholars—sitting at a round table analyzing a text together for a pluralistic shared enterprise. They might study the book of Exodus as an act to preserve and promote the Western philosophical tradition as a subversive political response to the changing cultural climate that may be losing its Western consciousness. Such a task could be noble and informative, helping students in their study of Exodus. However, this methodology, while valuable, might functionally not aim to appropriate the text to refer to God in the manner of faith traditions such as Catholicism.
Understanding these distinctions allows readers to reflect on their own interpretive practices. Are you approaching the Bible primarily through a historical-critical lens that might lead to a functional atheism, treating the text as a purely human document? Or are you integrating this method within a broader framework of belief, viewing the Bible as a divine revelation that refers to God?
By being aware of these heuristics, readers can approach the Bible in a more nuanced way, recognizing the strengths and limitations of each method. This understanding fosters a relationship with the text that honors both its historical context and its theological significance, enriching one’s interpretation and deepening one’s faith.
The distinction between a hermeneutic of belief and functional atheism is both sound and significant. It highlights the underlying assumptions and goals that shape our interpretation of the Bible. By reflecting on these distinctions, individuals can approach the Bible with greater clarity and intentionality, ensuring that their interpretive methods align with their spiritual and theological commitments. This nuanced approach ultimately enriches both the academic study of the text and the personal faith journey of the reader.
Quick Reflection on History
The tension between belief-based and critical approaches to biblical interpretation has historical precedents. In the early 20th century, theologians like Karl Barth reacted against the liberal theology and historical-critical methods of figures such as Rudolf Bultmann. Barth emphasized the need for a theology grounded in the revelation of God, warning that over-reliance on historical criticism could lead to a loss of the Bible’s divine message. This tension reflects the broader struggle between faith and reason, tradition and critical analysis, which continues to shape theological discourse.
Hans-Georg Gadamer’s philosophical hermeneutics also contribute to this discussion. Gadamer emphasized the importance of tradition and the interpreter’s historical situatedness, arguing that understanding involves a fusion of horizons between the text and the interpreter. This approach resonates with the traditional Catholic heuristic, which integrates historical understanding within a framework of belief.
By considering these historical insights, we see that the distinction between a hermeneutic of belief and functional atheism is part of a longstanding debate in theology and philosophy. Recognizing this context helps us appreciate the depth and complexity of our interpretive approaches, guiding us toward a more balanced and reflective engagement with the Bible.
