Book Review — Talking about the Clear and the Obscure.
The Obscurity of Scripture by Casey Chalk
Author Casey Chalk provides a valuable insight into the Reformation’s core doctrine. This doctrine is called the “perspicuity of scripture” (“PS.”)[1] In “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea,” Protestant theologian Alister McGrath claims that “private interpretation” — a doctrine closely related to the PS doctrine — is the key concept that underlies Protestantism. For McGrath, Protestantism is explained by “private interpretation” more than the official doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura because private interpretation explains the changing, fissiparous, almost coreless nature of Protestantism qua Protestantism.
McGrath asks the question, “what is Protestantism.” His answer is that Protestantism is a “method” by which believers constantly examine their assumptions against the Bible and are willing to jettison or modify their beliefs without regard to the conclusions reached by prior generations. As such, McGrath feels, Protestantism is a uniquely democratic engine of adaptation, mutation and evolution. McGrath is quite explicit in his use of biological metaphors, particularly evolutionary metaphors, to describe Protestantism. (See e.g., p. 466 (“The capacity to adapt is the birthright of Protestantism.”); p. 463 (“One pattern that emerges from the development of Protestantism is what seems to be an endless cycle of birth, maturing, aging and death, leading to renewal and reformulation.”); p. 400 (“Protestantism is not a static entity, but a living entity whose identity mutates over time. Yet that mutation leads to a variety of outcomes — among which some flourish and others wither.”).)
This is not the intention of Protestants. If you speak to Protestant apologists, they will explain that the differences between the various denominations are not material and that all agree on a common set of doctrines essential for salvation. However, if that is the case, one must wonder why there are any denominational differences. In my experience with Protestant apologists, the perspicuity of scripture is treated as a faith proposition rather than an empirical fact. Again, this is strange because there is no Christian doctrine with better empirical support than that scripture is not perspicuous; the proof is found in the disagreement over scripture.
At this point, terminology should be explained. “Sola Scriptura” (“SS”) is the doctrine that teaches that all Christian doctrines are to be found exclusively in the text of the Bible accepted by Protestants.[2] A subsidiary doctrine is mentioned by Alister McGrath, i.e., the doctrine of private interpretation. The PS Doctrine is the doctrine that some or most of the Bible — but particularly those portions dealing with salvation — can be comprehended by uneducated people with ordinary means and reason. [3] Chalk mentions correspondence between English Reformer William Whitaker and Cardinal Bellarmine, defining perspicuity of scripture as follows:
In contrast to what he viewed as Catholic misrepresentations of clarity, Whitaker offered three principles of the doctrine: (1) that the Bible is clear enough to be read even by the unlearned with “some fruit and utility”; (2) that all that is “necessary to salvation” is plainly communicated in the Bible; and (3) that the Bible needs “explication” by God’s ministers, who are “the men best skilled in scripture [to be] consulted.”[4]
Chalk, Casey. The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity (p. 87). Emmaus Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Chalk explains that doctrines of private interpretation and perspicuity of scripture are required by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Luther claimed that if a doctrine were not clear to him from scripture alone, he would not change his understanding of scripture. Luther ruled out anything but scripture as the basis of determining doctrine other than his personal or private understanding of what the biblical text said.[5] Luther, therefore, established the underlying principle of the Reformation, to wit:
The Reformation, and, by extension, the Protestant paradigm, is predicated on the premise that individual Christians are better judges of scriptural meaning than any higher ecclesial authority. This premise explains Luther’s refusal to acknowledge historic Church councils that came to different conclusions from him regarding the interpretation of the Bible, as well as the actions of other Reformers who rebelled from Rome on what they termed biblical grounds. As the Calvinist confessional document, the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches: “All synods or councils since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as a help in both.”
Chalk, Casey. The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity (pp. 65–66). Emmaus Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.
In rejecting the institutional church in the name of his understanding, Luther necessarily privileged individual autonomy (as opposed to championing another authority structure.)[6]
The Reformation, at its very center, sought to liberate individual Christians from what was perceived as an overbearing, corrupt, intellectually lazy, and doctrinally erroneous Catholic Church. Against this, Luther, Calvin, and the other Reformers preached the autonomy of the individual Christian, including as it relates to biblical interpretation and the contents of the canon. This individual autonomy only makes sense if Scripture is in some sense perspicuous.
Chalk, Casey. The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity (p. 68). Emmaus Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Private interpretation and the PS doctrine are entailed doctrines — private interpretation is possible only if scripture is perspicuous; if scripture is perspicuous, then private interpretation is possible, and no one’s interpretation can be presumed more authoritative than anyone else’s. Perspicuity is primary because if it is true, then it is the basis of the other doctrines, and it is the only one that presumably exists outside the biased and flawed mind of the believer. Chalk explains:
Without perspicuity, Protestants can have no confidence of their salvation. Perspicuity is thus the foundational, if unspoken tenet of Protestantism, a premise that is operative in all other prominent doctrines, including sola scriptura and sola fide. Without perspicuity, sola scriptura is useless, because the individual Christian cannot divine the Bible’s clear teachings. Without perspicuity, sola fide is only one of multiple, competing understandings of how the Christian is saved. And if sola fide is not the default, unquestioned soteriological biblical teaching, then ecclesiology, including the Christian’s ability to determine which churches are legitimate, also becomes obscured. Without perspicuity, it becomes impossible for Protestants to even attempt a biblical theology that aspires to coherency. Without perspicuity, Protestants cannot identify what they believe to be true, authentic Christianity. It is a way for Protestants to attempt to foist a level of objectivity upon a system that by its very nature descends into subjectivity.
Chalk, Casey. The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity (p. 70). Emmaus Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.
The question that needs to be answered is whether scripture is perspicuous in a sense necessary for private interpretation and sola scriptura.
Unlike other doctrines, this one seems to be empirically testable. For example, if scripture were lucid and clear in some sense on some important subject, then we would expect to see no disagreements on those subjects. However, as Alister McGrath points out, agreement is not a Protestant virtue. One ought to conclude that perspicuity is not a substantial feature of scripture.[7]
Given this problem, Protestant apologists resort to various strategies to square the circle. One strategy is to take offense at the notion that God has failed in his ability to communicate. Chalk points out that this approach begs the question:
Sproul rhetorically asks, “What kind of a God would reveal his love and redemption in terms so technical and concepts so profound that only an elite corps of professional scholars could understand them?”12 There are, however, certain unproven premises built into this line of argumentation. The first is that in inspiring the authors of various books of the Bible, God intended His words to be so clear that individuals who read them will require no recourse to an interpretive authority in order to intuit their meaning on essential matters. Yet this is precisely what is debated between Catholics and Protestants as it relates to perspicuity and is thus a form of question-begging. The second has to do with the recipient of God’s communication, namely man. Even if one were to grant the unproven presumption that God intends for readers of Scripture to understand its meaning absent an interpretive, arbitrating authority, those readers must be properly disposed to understand it. Yet, as the Reformation-era example of Bellarmine and Whitaker and the modern example of Arendt demonstrate, clarity may still be thwarted by the disposition of the reader or auditor.[8]
Chalk, Casey. The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity (p. 101). Emmaus Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Another strategy is to rank texts by importance to a central doctrine — sola fide — and find a canon within a canon. Chalk observes:
One option, which is visible in Luther’s theology, is to create a tiered, hierarchical structure to Scripture, including the “canon within a canon,” and identify those passages that most “clearly” articulate what he deemed to be the Bible’s “evangelical” witness. Thus passages that seem to affirm the reality of human agency are interpreted in light of other passages that seem to prioritize God’s sovereignty and diminish man’s independent will.
Chalk, Casey. The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity (p. 110). Emmaus Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.
This is question-begging and circular argumentation.[9] How does one decide a priori that there is such a canon within a canon? In view of Sola Scriptura, where is that said in scripture? It is something that has to be explained by someone claiming some authority outside of scripture.[10]
A further approach is to cherry-pick the points of agreement among fellow travelers and rule out those who disagree as “fringe” or non-Christian. Chalk observes:
The perspicuity of Scripture cannot be demonstrated or confirmed by creating an ad hoc interpretive “consensus” of like-minded Protestants. Traditionalist Methodists or conservative Presbyterians cannot declare Scripture clear on certain teachings simply by finding like-minded fellow-travelers and re-drawing the boundaries of their ecclesial organisms to exclude progressive Methodists or liberal Presbyterians. To again cite Bryan Cross’s analogy, this is simply to draw a target around one’s interpretive arrow and call this exegetical uniformity.55
Chalk, Casey. The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity (p. 119). Emmaus Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Yet another approach is to redefine the scope of perspicuity until it becomes a broad statement about “those things necessary for salvation.” But what does this mean in practice? Does it include sola fide? Catholics deny Sola Fide. So, it seems like that can’t be perspicuous.[11]
This conundrum leads to a behavior of Protestant apologists that I can confirm from personal experience, namely, in insisting that something is “clear,” Protestant apologists are often caused to accuse those who deny the points they clearly derive from scripture of being in bad faith, sinners, or corrupted by sin. Chalk writes:
These three allegations — ignorance, sin, and Satan — have remained common from the Reformation to present-day Protestantism. Any rebuff might trigger a rhetorical rant, peppered with angry insults or assertions based on personal experience that often replace textual evidence.29 This is certainly visible in the example of Zwingli, who accused his interpretive opponents of being “so tightly sewn up in their ass’s hide.”
Chalk, Casey. The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity (p. 171). Emmaus Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.
This approach goes back to the beginning of the Reformation:
Only a few years after Luther’s initial protest against Rome, opinions about the Bible and religious practice were already diverging in significant ways, as is evidenced by the German theology professor’s increasingly acrimonious relationship with former ally Karlstadt, who was eventually banished from the Electorate of Saxony with Luther’s approval.21 Within a few decades, any hope for a consensus among Protestants had already evaporated. What consensus did materialize often had more to do with political realities — namely, that “magisterial Protestants” such as Lutherans and Calvinists enjoyed secular political support that enabled them to marginalize the radical Reformers — than broad-based religious agreement at the popular level.22 Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli offered three allegations against their interpretive opponents which became normative for Protestants in trying to explain the dilemma of why others came to different conclusions over a supposedly simple and clear Bible. The first was to charge their interlocutors with lacking the intellectual acumen to interpret Scripture rightly. This shares much overlap with what Christian Smith calls the “noetically-damaged-reader” option, meaning that sin has affected humanity’s ability to grasp intellectually the clear teaching of Scripture.
Chalk, Casey. The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity (p. 168). Emmaus Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.
It should be noted that the Protestant and Catholic positions are not symmetrical. Catholics can accept Protestant error more complacently since they don’t expect scripture to be perspicacious necessarily. Protestants, though, are obligated to believe that Catholics are denying a clear and obvious interpretation. Chalk explains:
In every debate, both sides presume their foes to be in some sense ignorant, whether regarding the information they know or their ability to make logical connections. However, for those adhering to perspicuity, their interlocutor is ignorant in reference to what should be simple and clear. It is not that one’s interlocutor is ignorant regarding something complex or difficult, and perhaps by no fault of his or her own, but that he or she is either intellectually or morally deficient in failing to perceive the obvious. The adherent to perspicuity, according to his or her own paradigm, is arguing with someone who has failed to appreciate that the sky is blue. Suffice it to say for now that if we do not presume Scripture to be so clear that even the simple can intuit its plain meaning on matters of salvation, then we need not presume that those holding erroneous biblical interpretations are stupid or sinful. Rather, those who err in their interpretation may do so simply because they lack the divinely given authority to interpret the Bible properly. Those who interpret Scripture wrongly — even considered from the Catholic paradigm — may still do so as a result of ignorance, sin, or demonic deception. But one need not presume it, because Scripture is not so clear that any person can interpret it properly without recourse to a God-given authority.
Chalk, Casey. The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity (pp. 173–174). Emmaus Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.
It seems obvious that whatever “perspicuity” the scriptures have, it is not sufficient to generate consensus.
So, what is the alternative?
Chalk describes the Catholic approach, which involves reading the text within the community of the Church:
The Catholic interpretive paradigm is not, as some Protestant caricatures would suggest, a model where lay Catholics are dissuaded from reading and interpreting Scripture on their own, or where they are told only a single, authoritative reading of particular verses is permitted.31 The Catholic Church holds Holy Scripture in the highest regard and gives her preeminent place among her other authoritative sources (holy Tradition, the magisterium). The Bible, read, heard, and understood in the liturgical practices of the Church, is central to Catholic theology and worship.32 Individual Catholics are exhorted to study the Bible, both in the context of the liturgy and in their personal lives. Yet personal study of Holy Scripture is intimately wedded both to Sacred Tradition and the magisterial teaching of the Church, both of which serve as exegetical guardrails, preventing Catholics from interpreting the Bible in manners contrary to Catholic dogma.33 Catholic biblical interpretation is truly reading the text in community, a community that possesses a veritable authority that guides the individual Christian “in any way concerning the salvation of your soul,” writes St. Thomas More.34 Within these authoritative strictures, there is still the potential to always approach the text afresh, uniting Tradition and the magisterium with the contemporary complexities of the world, and deciphering new spiritual, practical, and even doctrinal insights. Indeed, such has been consistently encouraged over the course of Church history by such churchmen as St. Vincent of Lérins and St. John Henry Newman in their explication of the principle of the development of doctrine. The Catholic concept of text in community offers the best, most coherent means of interpreting the Bible in a manner that remains faithful to orthodox teaching while leaving room for readings that are both fresh and address challenging new questions and crises that arise.
Chalk, Casey. The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity (pp. 225–226). Emmaus Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.
This book is logical and well-written. It is clear and lucid. I have been looking for something that would address the issues of private interpretation and perspicuity of scripture in a systematic way. I was not able to find any such book until now.
Footnotes:
[1] “Perspicuity” refers to fact that a text is clear, has clarity, and is lucid. In other words, a perspicuous text is one that is clear and lucid, i.e., easily understood by one who knows the language without special training or assistance.
[2] The term “Bible” in this context presents an immediate problem. The Protestant Bible has sixty-six books. The Catholic and Orthodox Bible has seventy-three books. The Protestant Bible omits seven books and some extra material that have been accepted by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches since the beginning of Christianity. (This point is also controversial for reasons not necessary for this discussion.)
[3] The Westminster Confession of Faith (1, VII) provides this definition for the PS doctrine: “VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:15yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto asufficient understanding of them.”
[4] Chalk points out that the Catholic position should not be caricatured. Catholicism acknowledges that scripture can be read by lay people with good effect and that not everything is obscure: “Yet Bellarmine never argued that the Bible was so obscure, difficult, and unintelligible that it was “useless” for lay people to read it. Rather, he wrote that Holy Scripture was too obscure for individual people to read it and reach a consensus on its meaning.” [Chalk, Casey. The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity (pp. 88–89). Emmaus Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.]
[5] “Many Christians, Protestant, Catholic, and even Orthodox, would label sola scriptura a foundational, if not the most foundational of Protestant doctrines.2 Luther himself famously declared at the Diet of Worms (1521): Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by evident reason — for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves — I consider myself conquered by the Scriptures adduced by me and my conscience is captive to the Word of God.” [Chalk, Casey. The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity (pp. 63–64). Emmaus Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.]
[6] Other Protestant denominations such as the English were not interested in abandoning the institutional authority structure. Chalk notes: “These examples demonstrate an interesting intersection between the doctrine of perspicuity and the elevation of the state as an arbiter of scriptural interpretation. Wycliffe suggested forming a cohort of expert scholars, supported by the English crown, to replace the authority of the Catholic Church. Luther — in spite of his “two kingdoms” theory that drew a strong dividing line between church and state — frequently appealed to secular political authorities to enforce his interpretations of Scripture against those of the Catholic Church and what came to be called the radical Protestants. Henry VIII sought to realize Wycliffe and Luther’s theological-political vision, establishing a state church that rejected Catholic magisterial authority in favor of state-sponsored theologians and scholars (he also dissolved the country’s many monasteries in order to acquire their wealth or distribute it to his allies).” [Chalk, Casey. The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity (p. 151). Emmaus Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.] Likewise, as the Reformation developed and other Reformed denominations came up with variant doctrines, Luther and his heirs were more inclined to stack the deck with catechisms and biblical footnotes to influence the private autonomy/interpretation of their followers. (See McGrath, supra.)
[7] Again, this does not mean that scripture is impenetrable without outside assistance: “To claim that Scripture is so abstruse that no one can be changed by it, or find Christ within, would be contrary to the testimonies of millions of Christians.” [Chalk, Casey. The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity (p. 91). Emmaus Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.] Consensus may be difficult to achieve, but personal interpretation is not without value so long as it approached with humility and a willingness to be taught.
[8] Perhaps God wanted something other than the “my Bible and me” paradigm? Perhaps God wanted people to form communities, maybe a “church”?
[9] It also leads to a cavalier attitude to scripture: “A second option, also visible in Luther, is to simply reject those texts that do not conform to his theological thesis. Some parts of the Bible, Luther concluded, are more evangelical and more expressive of the Gospel than others.33 The former would be those books or passages that Luther assessed best aligned with his sola fide hypothesis: the Pauline epistles, for example. Those that do not — the deuterocanonical books, James, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation — are either excised or devalued.” [Chalk, Casey. The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity (p. 110). Emmaus Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.]
[10] In Luther’s case, the thing outside of scripture was his philosophical commitment to nominalism: “Luther did approach the Bible with certain extra-biblical philosophical presuppositions — indeed, to do otherwise is impossible, because all humans, simply by virtue of being human, apply certain philosophical principles about knowledge and nature, however inchoate, when encountering and seeking to understand divine Revelation. Rather, the German monk-turned-Reformer borrowed largely from his own nominalist training, applying such ideas as Occam’s rejection of universals and his hyper-elevation of divine omnipotence. As the above discussion on Luther’s “competitive” understanding of divine power and human agency demonstrates, all biblical exegesis, regardless of one’s Christian tradition, is beholden to certain epistemological and metaphysical premises, even if we as individual Christians are ignorant of them. It thus becomes even more essential that we identify our own, and the potential flawed reasoning therein.[Chalk, Casey. The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity (p. 112). Emmaus Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.]
[11] Chalk points out that perspicuity descends into the ad hoc with this memorable paragraph: “The same fate awaited Church Tradition for those who subscribed to perspicuity. For in their paradigm, tradition carries interpretive authority in an arbitrary, ad hoc manner, applied only inasmuch as it conforms to the interpretive positions of the same individual Protestants. Eighteenth-century Anglican cleric Bishop Berkeley summarized it well in his pithy and clever statement making a pun of the slang word doxy (which could mean either a religious opinion or a mistress): “Orthodoxy, sir, is my doxy. Heterodoxy is the doxy of another.” [Chalk, Casey. The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity (p. 155). Emmaus Road Publishing. Kindle Edition.]
Who knew that Bishop Berkeley was that witty?
