The Bible as (Christ Centered) Narrative

The Bible as (Christ Centered) Narrative

There's no denying that there has been a trend in some conservative Christian circles over the past 100-150 years to take an unintentionally reductionistic approach to the Bible. The result has been the truths have been distilled out of the Bible's storyline to the extent that they have become unintelligible to modern culture. After all, how far can we go talking about moral guilt before God to a culture that doesn't believe in absolute moral standards, is therefore without a sense of guilt, and often refuses to acknowledge the existence of God in practice if not in theory?

Therefore recent movements to restore the biblical narrative as a key component in preaching the gospel (read: evangelism) are good, and even resonates with postmodern culture's love affair with story. Even putting postmodern culture aside, Christians themselves stand to have their faith strengthened by a more robust biblical theology. I'm all for the systematic study of Scripture (as anyone who knows me will attest). But a systematic presentation of the gospel rarely seems to work as an evangelistic tool anymore. Give someone a good story, on the other hand, and you're much more likely to strike a chord.

Yet, as important as stories are, the best stories have a narrative structure. They have characters and events - yes. But they also have plots that build to a climaxes. They offer dramatic tension. It would be incomplete to restore the biblical narrative but refuse to talk about the narrative structure. This means that the story needs to be interpreted.

So how ought we to interpret the story? Put another way, how ought we to interpret the Bible? To answer this question, it's helpful to distinguish two alternatives and offer my own position. Keep in mind that I'm talking about principles of biblical interpretation. If my descriptions suggest different groups of people to you, then they will probably look like straw men.

Here are the two alternatives:

1. Interpret Scripture systematically. These people will view the Bible primarily as "God, sin, Christ, faith," - as different doctrines to be understood. That is, the Bible primarily presents different concepts which we need to study as comprehensively as possible in order to guide right thinking and living. I've been helped by the analogy of furniture. If you have a dark room full of furniture, then you want to have a light source in order to properly navigate the room (otherwise you're asking to trip and fall or stub your toe). The furniture in this analogy are various Christian doctrines. The light source is Scripture.
2. Interpret Scripture as narrative. People disposed in this manner see the Bible as telling a story. They'll see the Bible primarily as, "creation, fall, redemption, restoration." Similar to Dante's Divine Comedy, the Bible is a story in which things start off good (creation), and then take a quick turn for the worse (fall). The rest of the story is our recovery and getting back to where we're supposed to be (redemption and restoration). So, in this view, we're part of a story.

But there is a problem with viewing things this way, isn't there? The problem is that, try as we might, these two methods can't be separated. Take the Christian doctrines, the product systematic theology. What kind of picture to they paint? They paint a picture of a God who made the universe ex nihilo (creation), of mankind which was created good, yet turned away from God by the original sin of Adam (fall), of God's son becoming man incarnate in order to save mankind (redemption), and a world that will be replaced by a new, perfect world - a new heaven and a new earth (restoration).

Moving in the other direction, where do we get the notion of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration in Scripture? They're not explicitly stated anywhere. They're systematic categories. I would suggest that, if we ever hope to interpret the narrative of Scripture in any meaningful way whatsoever, we're going to import systematic categories to it. The question is, are those categories good or bad?

Answering this question is best done in an environment when systematic and biblical theologians can work together constructively. Anyone who would advocate interpreting Scripture as narrative over-against studying it systematically effectively shoots themselves in the foot.

Following the title of this post, I am calling this middle road between systematic and biblical theology "Christ-centered narrative." The entire narrative of Scripture points us to the work of Jesus Christ. Knowing this, it's natural that we can study His person and work systematically. All of Scripture weaves a rich tapestry about who Christ is and what He has done and is doing. What Isaiah says about Him is every bit as valid as what Paul said. But all of our systematic study should be informed by our realization that even Jesus Christ fits into the historical narrative of the Bible. (Although not merely. As the second person of the Trinity, Jesus is also Lord of history.)

Practically speaking, this means that our study of systematic theology helps us to understand the interpretive lens we should use when reading scripture. In turn, scripture itself should inform how we balance and priorities the different systematic loci.

Ultimately there is more nuance here than I can easily put into writing. (As much is probably clear by now!) This is also an area of study that I am just beginning to get into. What do you think? Am I starting to put two and two together? Or am I just off my duff?