1. Ignoring context. This is the big one, but so many people fall prey to it (including me, at times). All written words derive their intended meaning from enculturated grammatical and syntactical patterns, expressed within a larger literary context. It’s always helpful to remember the axiom, “a text without a context is a pretext for a proof-text”. I might add that context doesn’t just relate to the words that immediately precede and follow a pericope, but also to the broader canonical context as well.
2. Failure to deal with cultural remoteness and differences. This is a form of (1). Context doesn’t just have to do with words, but understanding the socio-political and historical context as well. A reader in the 21st century is so far removed from the milieu in which the biblical documents were written that it sometimes requires considerable effort to understand what the text originally meant to its first readers. While many truths in the Bible are readily apparent to us now, we must always remember that all biblical testimony was first given in a specific context. Knowing that context can help unpack the intended meaning more accurately.
3. Inability to live with theological tension. Many people – especially those in the Western world – cannot tolerate paradoxes in the Bible. They insist on ironing out the texture of the Bible’s testimony in order to sleep at night. It happens in many ways. For example, Oneness Pentecostals (who reject the idea of the Trinity) butcher the many passages that clearly teach that God exists as three co-equal persons. After all, if God is one, how can he be three? Because the Trinity is a difficult concept to fully understand, they choose to smother all Trinitarian references with a form of modalism. I could raise a myriad of others issues where theological tension drives people to polar opposites, particularly in soteriology, ecclesiology and eschatology.
4. Over-commitment to tradition – both ecclesial and epistemic. Some churches or denominations over-emphasize one doctrine for the sake of supporting their traditional doctrines (which perhaps don’t have a strong grounding in the Bible). But the idea of ‘tradition’ isn’t just limited to a doctrinal continuum with the past. Many churches seem to maintain epistemic traditions as well. I know some Christians who are seemingly unaware that their individualistic, modernist epistemology often inhibits them allowing the Bible to speak on its own terms, in its own way.
5. Unawareness of cultural forces being exerted on contemporary exegesis. When it comes to issues of sexuality, leadership, gender, and the sacraments, our culture has been exerting enormous pressure on Christians whose beliefs are more ‘traditional’. Many changes to the church’s doctrine over the last 50 years have been due to a weakening of biblical exegesis and theological courage.
6. Promoting undifferentiated attributes of God. Yes – God is love, but he’s also just and holy. Many serious errors arise in the church when one attribute of God is taken as the sum total of all his attributes.
7. No familiarity with original languages. The Bible was not written in ye olde English as found in the King James Bible. It was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Some knowledge of these languages is necessary to clarify the intended message of the biblical documents in their original contexts.
8. Flattening out biblical diversity and complexity with a sweeping statement or doctrine. This is really a combination of points (2), (3), (6), and sometimes motivated by (4). For example, some Christians will say, “Circumcision was a nationalistic sign that marked one out as part of the Jewish nation.” That’s certainly true, but circumcision meant much more than that (Rom. 4:11). All theological concepts and doctrine are complex and interrelated with others biblical truths. The Davidic kingship and dynasty is multi-faceted. Baptism is multivalent. Jesus is prophet, priest, and king . . . and . . . the Prince of Peace, the Lamb of God, etc.
spes clara 