Book review: What The Bible Really Teaches: A Challenge to Fundamentalists by Keith Ward

Author: Keith Ward (former Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford)

Themes: The Bible, evangelicalism, fundamentalism, doctrine

Length: 182 pages

Content: 8/10

Readability: 9/10

Price: £9.99 Amazon and SPCK, £6.81 Book Depository

"I have tried to set out what the Bible teaches on a number of issues that fundamentalists get wrong…On all of these subjects the Bible actually teaches the opposite of what fundamentalists say...They impose an authoritarian interpretation of the Bible that is as dogmatic as any medieval Catholic theology, and usually less informed. They make their faith even more exclusive than that of those Catholics who claimed that there is no salvation outside of the church. And they make intellectual assent to ‘sound’ doctrines a more important test of Christian faith than life by the Spirit…The greatest tragedy of fundamentalism is that it gets the Bible wrong.”

Read the full review below:

This is written as a polemical book, and is such by the author’s own admission. It is an engaging, stimulating, and very well-aimed arrow aimed right at the heart of fundamentalist Christianity. Keith Ward describes himself as a born-again evangelical, and yet he relates how when he read his Bible he simply found it impossible to reconcile with some of the supposedly ‘biblical’ doctrines that as a conservative Christian he was supposed to believe. In short, he says, those ‘Bible believing’ Christians who claim that their particular set of beliefs are based upon a faithful ‘plain sense’ reading of scripture are quite simply wrong.

He begins by tracing a brief outline of the history of fundamentalism as it began at the end of the nineteenth century with its ‘five fundamentals’ of the verbal inerrancy of scripture, the divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the substitutionary theory of the atonement, and the physical, bodily return of Jesus. These are rather odd doctrines to have as core beliefs, Ward notes, as the virgin birth is not really a core issue even in scripture, the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement is only one amongst many, and that the ‘biblical’ views of the return of Christ are often confused and incoherent in fundamentalist theology. Most oddly of all, Ward contends, is that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy to which fundamentalists hold is not only not taught anywhere in scripture, but that it is quite simply untenable.

Fundamentalism often accuses non-fundamentalist Christianity (not only those evil liberals) of being selective with the Bible and picking and choosing the bits of scripture from which they develop their doctrine, and ‘watering down’ the Gospel in so doing. Ward points out at great length throughout the rest of the book that this ‘picking and choosing’ is precisely what the fundamentalists themselves are guilty of with regards to scripture. The fundamentalist reading of scripture not only contradicts the Bible in many places, but it is very new on the scene in the history of the church and often pays no attention to more ancient and more widely-held Christian interpretations of the Bible. In short, Ward argues, fundamentalism has just the Bible plain wrong.

Ward’s book is full of such polemical statements, for which he makes no apology. Any fundamentalists who are riled by such statements are only likely to become more agitated by Ward’s methodology as he seeks to deconstruct their theology by appealing to the very scriptures on which fundamentalists seek to base their doctrines. Ward is not at all trying to undermine the Bible, but rather he attempts to show (with a certain degree of success) that the Bible frequently does not support the doctrines that ‘Bible believers’ hold so dearly.

Reading scripture properly

The book is essentially a rethinking of biblical theology by seeking to examine key doctrines (for example, resurrection, atonement, heaven and hell, the return of Christ, and so on) in the light of the whole of scripture. Ward is of course far too good a strategist to simply resort to fighting proof-texts with proof-texts. Instead he begins by examining the doctrine of biblical inerrancy and seeing how ideas change throughout the Bible, and how it is necessary to have a sound interpretive framework for reading the Bible. Fundamentalists, argues Ward, may be content to ‘take God at his word’ and read scripture as flatly and literally as possible, but this not only neglects the rich imagery that the biblical writers frequently employ, but it also frequently leads to contradictions and inconsistencies. How many fundamentalists really believe that when Jesus said ‘I am the door’, that he meant he was a large plank of wood with hinges for example? Or that when the Psalms speak of God hiding the Psalmist in the ‘feathers of his wings’ we are suppose to believe that God is literally some kind of giant bird? Ward’s criticism of the hermeneutical naivety of fundamentalism and its subsequent theological immaturity is not meant to be cynical and derogatory, but rather it is done with the aim of encouraging fundamentalists to re-think some of their theology, because as far as Ward is concerned (with much justification), so much ‘bible-believing’ theology does not actually reflect biblical thought at all.

Ward begins the main thrust of his polemic by highlighting the problems with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy to which fundamentalists hold. Fundamentalists, argue Ward, assume (in practice, if not in theory) that because the Bible is inspired, God must have dictated the contents of scripture in its entirety. Therefore, so the logic goes, any particular verse can be taken as a divinely-uttered statement of propositional truth, as though somehow the Bible was simply an ancient unsorted version of Calvin’s Institutes or Barth’s Church Dogmatics. Far from ‘taking the Bible seriously’, this approach both ignores the origins, literary genre, and human content of the Bible because it has a warped and inappropriate doctrine of inerrancy and inspiration which actually reflects more strongly on nineteenth century conservatism than on the biblical testimony itself.

Seeking to take on fundamentalism on its own biblically-based territory, Ward outlines his ‘six principles of biblical interpretation’ that are necessary to come to a fuller and more biblically consistent viewpoint on certain theological issues. Firstly comes ‘contextualisation’ – setting a text in its original circumstances. Who wrote it and why? What had happened that caused this text to be written? What kind of text is it – poetry, praise, historical narrative, a vision, a letter, or something else? Ward notes that the Bible can be read as a source of spiritual comfort and enlightenment quite apart from consulting any scholarly authority, but this approach quite simply will not do when one is attempting to use the Bible to establish doctrine. The anti-intellectualism that is prevalent in fundamentalist circles does not help to form sound doctrine, it actually undermines it.

Secondly, comes the importance of being consistent when reading a text. Texts from the same part of the Bible should be treated in the same way. Ward makes the case that no one would take seriously the command in Deuteronomy 20:16 to wipe out all of one’s enemies when invading a nation, especially as this seems to be contrary to Jesus’ later teaching about loving one’s enemies. To be consistent then, we should read all statements about the Law in this light, and not simply pick out some parts of the law (e.g. to do with homosexuality) as authoritative and binding while rejecting others (e.g. laws about uncleanness). This should, Ward says, “stop us from sating ‘you must do this simply because it’s in the Bible.’”

Ward follows this by underlining the importance of ‘comprehensiveness’ in biblical interpretation (does the wider body of scripture support this interpretation of one isolated verse?) and also the principle of sublation – rejecting a literal reading of a text because other verses would show that it is not be applied that way. For instance when Jesus says “You have heard that it was said ‘Eye for Eye and Tooth for Tooth’. But I say to you do not resist an evil person,” he is not abolishing the law but showing that behind the literal meaning of a text there is actually the real spiritual meaning to be brought out. So we must then be very cautious when we say ‘the Bible says’ something, when in fact it may well be saying something else completely.

There is of course also a spiritual meaning to many texts that are important to consider. Literal histories such as the Exodus also have a spiritual meaning behind them that calls for moral action in the present. The Exodus not only points towards the future liberation from sin on the cross, but also calls for end to slavery and oppression in the present. In the light of this it is foolish to read all biblical texts literally in this way. For instance, mountains do not literally melt before God (Micah 1:4), and neither does God literally ride a horse through the sea and shoot arrows at people (Habbukuk 3:11-15). Texts like these are clearly images designed to convey truth about God, and so clearly there is no need to read them literally. Ward also posits the suggestion that this is also an appropriate way of reading texts about the creation and end of the world. This is of course anathema in fundamentalist circles, but Ward does offer at least a brief biblical argument for these positions

Finally Ward examines what in my view the most important issue in biblical interpretation – the importance of Christ-centeredness in biblical interpretation. Without God’s self-revelation in Christ, none of the rest of scripture has any focus. The Bible is not a series of statements uttered by God, it is a testimony that finds its ultimate fulfilment and meaning in the person of Christ himself. This means that all biblical texts must be read in the light of God’s purpose to redeem all humanity as he has revealed it in Christ. So any doctrines that are vindictive and vengeful or that picture God’s justice as being pure retribution with no reference to his essential nature as Love (1 John 4:16), or that insist that salvation is only for a privileged few and that God intends to damn the rest of the world forever must be checked against the person and work of Christ, and if they do not reflect Christ, they must be rejected as being legitimate Christian interpretations.

It would be difficult to raise any serious objections to Ward’s hermeneutical scheme, though throughout the rest of the book he uses this scheme to examine what the Bible really teaches in several areas of theology. So do the fundamentalists really have it all wrong? Ward insists that they most definitely do, and devotes the rest of the book to examining why.

Doctrines reconsidered

The first area for treatment is the Second Coming of Christ. Fundamentalists frequently begin their treatment of the subject with Jesus’ teaching about the ‘Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven’ in Mark 13 and parallels and so from that they infer a doctrine where Jesus will literally return to earth by descending on a cloud. As Ward eagerly points out, this is where fundamentalist claims to ‘take the Bible literally’ show themselves to be ridiculous. Whilst they maintain a wholehearted commitment to a literal return to earth of Jesus on a cloud, they do not take literally Jesus’ statement that the 'coming of the Son of Man' would occur within a generation. Likewise Paul also presents fundamentalism with a problem as regards the expectation of Christ’s return. Paul seems to expect the return of Christ within his own lifetime. In 1 Thessalonians Paul expects to be one of those left alive when the Lord returns, and Paul even thinks that this is ‘the Lord’s own word’ (1 Thess 4:15).

What is crucial, argues Ward, is that we understand the difference between literal and symbolic interpretation of biblical texts, because if we take Paul literally over the expectation of Christ’s coming in his lifetime, we can only conclude that Paul was wrong. Neither (as Ward frequently points out) do fundamentalists read Matthew 24:34 literally, and they twist the texts about ‘the coming of the Son of Man’ so that they are made to appear as though Jesus was talking about the end of the world, many centuries after his death. In Ward’s view, this alone should made it clear that ‘taking the Bible literally’ is quite simply false and illogical, and that it is the fundamentalists themselves who are guilty of misreading the texts.

Ward does look at some possible biblical interpretations about the Parousia of Christ and the coming of the Son of Man by looking at further biblical teaching on the matter. He also makes a very crucial point that in much of fundamentalist Christianity, talk of final judgment fills people with conceit, vindictiveness and secret pleasure at the thought of their enemies being destroyed and themselves being saved, yet the point of Jesus’ teaching is not to make people hard and callous, but it is intedned that they turn to God and become healed (Matt 13:15-16). People who delight in the prospect of a vindictive final judgment show themselves to be callous and hard-hearted, and that they have not understood God at all.

Ward concludes that in the light of the texts themselves, talk of the ‘Second Coming’ of Jesus taking place by his descent to earth on a cloud and the last trumpet should not be taken literally, because the texts themselves rule out this possibility. Ward does says that there will of course be a future consummation of God’s kingdom, but we do not know when this will be. Importantly he stresses that the reason God has not brought the age to an end is because he wants everyone to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:8-9) and that it will not be until then that his Kingdom will finally come. In my view Ward’s conclusions in this area of doctrone are a little too vague at times and the recent work on the biblical understanding of the Parousia by the likes of N T Wright would have helped to illuminate is arguments a great deal more. Nevertheless Ward’s concern is less with detailed scholarship as he is writing for a broader audience, and as far as his case against fundamentalism goes in this area of biblical teaching, he makes a good case.

The rest of the book unfolds in a similar fashion as it addresses other central areas of doctrine. In each case Ward begins by examining fundamentalist teaching in each area and then highlighting where it disagrees with the Bible, or indeed where it has simply picked and chosen certain parts of scripture. More often than not, Ward argues, fundamentalists are simply following modified versions of Calvin, Carl Henry, and so on rather than just reading the ‘plain sense’ of scripture as they claim to do. Ward attempts to address the selectiveness of fundamentalism by discussing matters in a wider biblical context to help arrive at a more balanced and truly biblical conclusion.

Apart from the Second Coming (see above), Ward also deals with other key areas of teaching where he says that Fundamentalists have quite simply got it wrong. He deals with the issue of salvation, evil and the love of God, sin and grace, the sacrifice of Jesus, the resurrection, judgment, heaven and hell, the moral law and compares and contrasts the views of ‘bible believers’ with what the scriptures themselves actually teach. Some of his conclusions are not always convincing and would benefit from further discussion, although this book is less than 200 pages long and is only intended as an overview rather than a verse-by-verse exegesis of all the critical texts.

Conclusion

The book itself is quite accessible for those with little or no theological background and maintains a healthy balance of readability and theological depth. There is no mistaking that this book is highly polemical, and the fundamentalists at which it is aimed are unlikely to warm to it, though by confronting them on their own ‘biblical’ territory Ward does a good job in showing how often ‘bible-believing’ Christianity is actually anything but that. Ward describes himself as a ‘born again evangelical’ and the book is written for evangelicals and those who wish to take scripture seriously as a basis for faith but for whom fundamentalism is bewildering and both intellectually and biblically untenable, though it is likely to appeal to other Christian groups as well.

I highly recommend it to both those who are fundamentalist in their theology and to those who want to take scripture seriously without going to the extremes erratic dogmatism of Fundamentalism. There is of course much to disagree with in this book, but is a well thought out and engagingly written polemic aimed right at the heart of fundamentalist Biblicism, and though the small-scale impact of the book is hardly likely to deal fundamentalism a mortal blow, is does show that so much of their ‘sound doctrine’ is really neither sound nor biblical.