Shoehorning

It may have been ever thus, but there seem to be an increasing number
of books – often from the fields of biblical or systematic theology –
that present themselves as having discovered or provided the overarching
theme of the Scriptures as a whole, the lens through which the whole
should be read and interpreted. At other times, there is a supposed
historical precedent which, we are informed, must govern the way in
which we handle not only uninspired texts, but even the Scriptures
themselves. Perhaps there is even an experimental approach: we have had
such-and-such an experience, therefore it must be validated by the Word
of God.

Every other theme or text is then shoehorned into the
grand scheme, trimmed and hammered until the squarest of pegs slide into
the roundest of holes. Sometimes, there is something that is compelling
about such presentations, and much light is shed on the Word of God.
One might still not accept the demand that this be the point at which we
stand in order to change the world, while appreciating the help given
in seeing this as a weighty theme or principle. At other times, I am
concerned at how blunt or even crass that process is, with some shallow
little epithet becoming the cookie cutter into which every text or
doctrine must be forced. We end up reading our Bibles with a combination
of myopia and tunnel vision, and not just those that come of being
fallen creatures.

At the same time, most of us are probably
accustomed to reading the Bible through a certain set of lenses. We come
to the Word of God with certain notions, and these – consciously or
unconsciously, possibly even subconsciously – inform our hermeneutics.
This is largely inevitable. We open the Bible with certain
presuppositions, a certain system influencing if not governing the way
in which we read.

As a result, we tend to find in the Scriptures
what accords with our own convictions. You might recall John ‘Rabbi’
Duncan’s attempt at self-definition: “I’m first a Christian, next a
catholic, then a Calvinist, fourth a paedobaptist, and fifth a
Presbyterian. I cannot reverse this order.” I wonder if (with necessary
adjustments and extensions, depending on our beliefs) we also read the
Bible through those kinds of lenses, in more or less that order?

So
the key question must be, who makes the lenses and sets them in the
frames? Here is a great challenge for us if we are to be faithful and
humble readers of the Scriptures. Prayerfully dependent on the Holy
Spirit, we must adjust our lenses and our frames to ensure that the
Scriptures come into focus as they are, and not adjust the Scriptures so
that they can be read through our lenses and frames.

This, I
think, is one of the particular things that I appreciate about the
expositions of Calvin and some of the other older writers. Please
understand that I am not seeking to set up a Calvin versus the
Calvinists dichotomy, or necessarily trying to endorse the system that
often goes by the name of Calvinism. Rather, I am talking about the way
the man handles the Bible. And I think he handles the Bible humbly and
faithfully. There is no doubt that he reads with certain
presuppositions, as do we all. But when he reaches a given point in his
handling of a text, and noticeably where it is something which pushes
his system – starkly and mechanistically considered – out of shape, he
does not start trying to kick the text into shape, but he takes off his
shoes, for he is standing on holy ground. And that is something we all
must do.

Spurgeon once said, “Brethren, we shall not adjust our
Bible to the age; but before we have done with it, by God’s grace, we
shall adjust the age to the Bible.” If we are to do that, we must also
ensure that we do not adjust our Bible to the system, but the system to
our Bible. As we read, we must allow every line to have its full and
honest weight, to be interpreted historically and and linguistically and
grammatically in accordance with righteous standards, and to submit to
whatever we find. To be sure, we do not and cannot come nakedly to the
Word of God, and it would be folly to suggest that we do and can. But
let us be done with shoehorning the Bible, in the whole or in part, into
a preordained system. If I find it in my Bible, I must believe it. If I
do not, then I am not bound by it, and neither can I bind anyone else
to it. We cannot use the Bible to legitimise what we have already
decided must be true. If God’s Word declares it, I receive it and
embrace it, even if – where reason fails, with all its powers – there
faith prevails and love adores. We worship even when – perhaps
especially when – we cannot fully comprehend. Let us make sure that –
whatever we start with – we are continually adjusting our frames and
refining our lenses to ensure that the fixed points of the Word of God
inform everything else that we believe or do, and live and worship
accordingly.