I’m a minister, not a Bible scholar (though a minister must have some basic tools for reading, interpreting, and applying scripture) but I was involved in a discussion recently where ‘progressive revelation’ (in relation to the Bible) was used to argue the case for a changing approach to a certain hot-button issue. From what I could gather, the understanding of progressive revelation given could be paraphrased like this:
‘Over time we become more enlightened and so when we look at scripture there are certain parts we can disregard because we know better due to an increased awareness and understanding that those before us did not have.’
Recognising that such enlightenment needs a standard through which things can be filtered to determine whether they are in or out, love was offered as the standard.
To illustrate the point, the Bible was compared to a parenting book from a few decades ago, showing that because we know better now, we are able to disregard parts of that book and affirm other parts. It was put forward that we can do the same with the Bible.
To create a real-world example, the debate about slavery in the late 18th and early 19th century was used. In that debate, many used examples of slavery in the Bible to proof-text an argument for maintaining that abhorrent institution. It was pointed out that Christians who opposed the slave-trade used a progressive revelation argument. It was concluded that, on the issue being discussed, a progressive revelation argument, much like on the debate of slavery, would lead one to a view in favour of a changed approach. Based on the understanding of progressive revelation put forward, I can see how that would be the case. But I disagree with both the understanding and the conclusion.
As someone who has spent some time on understanding the nature of slavery and how Christians stood to abolish it, I think progressive revelation was misrepresented and therefore I believe that linking slavery to the topic that was being discussed was also misguided.
Right now I do not wish to discuss the unnamed topic (hence I haven’t stated what it was). What I do wish to address is the nature of progressive revelation.
I wish to affirm part of the understanding of progressive revelation put forward; an increase in awareness and understanding over time within scripture. Where I think the understanding of progressive revelation that was put forward falls over is in its standard, ‘love.’ It sounds great, and I want to agree with it, but I can’t.
If all we have to go on to wrestle with scripture is that we are more enlightened, and our understanding of love then determines that we can disregard some parts of scripture and accept other parts, then we’re being incredibly subjective. With such an approach we’re open to flailing about in the breeze of our own subjectivity and the subjectivity of our cultural context. We can be blown around by any argument that can put across a strong sentimentality and tug at the emotional heart-strings of whatever we understand ‘love’ to be.
Granted, any way of reading and understanding scripture is open to our own subjectivity. We can’t escape this, but we need to able to do better than a progressive revelation that disregards some things simply by saying ‘I disagree with that and I’m more enlightened than the writer was in that time, and therefore I can disregard it because it doesn’t fit my perception of love.’ This may be a poor paraphrase, but that’s how the case looks.
Such an approach was NOT the approach of those who used progressive revelation to argue, through scripture, against the slave trade. Their hermeneutic (how they read and understood scripture) and their foundational standard were much stronger than that.
As someone who agrees with a progressive revelation hermeneutic and uses such an approach to affirm an argument against the slave trade, allow me to offer a hermeneutic of progressive revelation that I think has a robustness to inform many discussions, though, as with any method of interpretation, it won’t be air-tight.
During my theological studies I made a specific effort to spend a lot of time studying Genesis and Revelation, particularly Genesis 1-3 and Revelation 21-22. I did so because I hold to a type of narrative theology, and I believe that good narrative theology hinges on how we understand the beginning and the end (though it’s not really the end, but more like a new and better beginning) of the ‘story.’ Here’s a brief understanding of narrative theology:
‘Narrative theology teaches that the Bible is seen as the story of God’s interaction with His people. Supporters of narrative theology maintain that this does not mean the Bible doesn’t make propositional truth assertions, but that the primary purpose of Scripture is to record the relationship between God and His people and how we today, in this post-modern world, can continue in this story. This then is to take precedence over the more exacting analysis of systematic theology. Supporters of narrative theology go on to argue that narrative theology is less likely to pull verses out of context to support doctrinal positions.’
Go here to read more, including how narrative theology can be misused. [Note: while I agree with the point in the article about narrative theology possibly leading to relativism, I think its critique of adherents of narrative theology is a poor caricature]
As seen in the article, narrative theology can be entirely opened to an overly subjective approach, hence I believe understanding the anchor points of the story and what they tell us is extremely important. Our own experience and context is important, so it should never be tossed aside, but when evaluating and constructing ideas the Christian mind needs to hold together scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.
Narrative theology, by definition, allows for, and almost insists on, an understanding of progressive revelation when reading scripture and applying it now. The foundational idea of progressive revelation is that, over time, God reveals more of himself. In scripture this is done with three key anchor points that everything else can be measured by and tested against. They are creation (Genesis 1-2), Christ (the gospels), and consummation (Revelation 21-22). When approaching any topic, whichever way we sway, if we’re using progressive revelation to inform and then make our case, it needs to be made sense of through the lens of those three anchor points.
Creation reveals to us foundations for understanding God’s intention for all things, and humanity’s place in that. In terms of revealing God to us it is only partial. In those stories the Fall then happens and creation is ‘broken.’ It inhibits the full revelation of God. The Old Testament therefore, is a revelation of truth in part. Christ is a fuller revelation, settling disputes and challenging cultural sacred cows that had built around partial revelations of truth. It’s not that those revelations were untrue, it’s that they were partial. The New Testament is the wrestling with, and working out of that fuller revelation. The closing of the book of Revelation paints a picture for us of what God’s completed intention for his creation will look like.
Progressive revelation is understood through that lens and across that arc; again, creation, Christ, consummation.
When we look at slavery, it makes no sense in the face of humanity being created in the imago Dei (image of God) of Genesis 1 and 2 where humanity embodies that image, are free, equal, inherently afforded dignity and freedom, and are, in essence, owned by God, not by each other.
Following the fall, forms of slavery did then appear in the formation of the ancient nation of Israel when various practices of it were a normal part of the Ancient Near East. But when contrasted to other forms of slavery in their context, the instructions they were given around it, while not ideal in the eyes of our 21st century world and views, were a step forward.
In Christ the image of humanity is restored, and slavery became something that did not fit at all, so again, a progression takes place in how it is responded to and understood in a first century context. Then, when placed against the context of Revelation 21-22 it is easy to see how slavery would not fit at all. Progressive revelation, through this lens, makes a case for the abolition of slavery even though slavery appears in the Bible and can be argued for when using isolated proof text’ that ignore the overarching narrative and progression.
With this understanding love IS foundational, but that love is understood through God’s self-revelation in creation, Christ, and consummation, not through our own subjective lens, though our own subjectivity inevitably plays a part. It’s not about accepting some parts of scripture and disregarding other parts that we think are contradictory; it’s about understanding how it all fits in that arc of progression through those three anchor points.
As another example, the same goes for arguments around the place of women in ministry (for the record, in my ministry context this is not even a discussions anymore). I would make a case for equality in ministry based on a lens of progressive revelation that looks at the unity of men and women in the creation stories as the imago Dei both separately and together, sees the place Christ gives women in contrast to the norms of his day, and then imagines the ideal in a Revelation 21-22 world. Through this lens I see the New Testament writers wrestling with that progressing revelation and how it should play out for the new community of Christ followers. It does not say that what came before was wrong; it says that through the lens of the anchor points, there is something fuller being revealed as we move towards a healed and renewed world. Again, it’s about the standard given in the anchor points of creation, Christ, and consummation.
In the arguments around slavery and women in ministry, simply relying on isolated proof texting falls short. If we examine context and progression we might not find the ideal verses, but because of context we can nail home the arguments for abolition in one, and equality in the other, by leaning on a progressive revelation that uses creation, Christ, and consummation to help us see the direction both those issues were heading in. It gives us a chance to bring them to the highest embodiment they can receive prior to the fullness of the Revelation 21-22 world.
I believe this approach to progressive revelation upholds the integrity of scripture, reduces, but rightly does not eliminate our own reason and experience, and it provides a much more robust approach for those who maintain a high view of scripture while wanting to wrestle with modern issues.