Theological Debates Need Less Pride, More Augustine

My annual reading of Augustine’s Confessions always surfaces something new, and this year was no exception. Perhaps because I’d just finished Kevin Vanhoozer’s acclaimed Mere Christian Hermeneutics, I was struck by a section in Book 12 of Confessions about theological debate over biblical interpretation—where Augustine takes a posture we should adopt in current disputes over the text’s meaning.

Augustine is pondering the truths expounded by Moses in Genesis and the difficulty of wading through multiple seemingly legitimate interpretations. Anthony Esolen’s new translation expresses Augustine’s thought process:

Which of us can find out this meaning from among all those many true things which meet us when we seek them in these words, understanding them in this way or that, so that he can say with confidence that this is what Moses thought, or that that is what he intended to be understood in that account, and just as confidently as he might say, “This is true,” even if Moses was thinking about something else?

See how confident I am as I say that you made all things in your unalterable Word, all things invisible and visible, but I am by no means so confident as to say that Moses intended this . . . because though I see it to be certain in your truth, I cannot see it in his mind the same way, to be sure he was thinking of it when he wrote those words.

Notice two elements here. Augustine expresses total confidence in the truth and authority of God’s Word. That’s not in dispute. His confidence is in God. But he expresses less confidence that he has rightly understood the author’s original intent. He thinks he understands what the text means, but his level of certainty regarding his interpretation isn’t as high as his confidence that God speaks truth.

Danger of Pride in Theological Pursuits

But Augustine discovered not everyone holds to their interpretation with this level of humility.

Let no man vex me now by saying, “Moses did not think as you say, but as I say.” For if he should ask me, “How do you know that Moses was thinking what you infer from his words?” I should bear it with an even mind, and respond to him by saying what I have said above, and I might go into it a bit more fully, should he be stubborn about it.

Augustine will make a case for his viewpoint, and he’ll happily consider other perspectives, so long as they lie within the bounds of orthodoxy. He loves the back-and-forth of theological debate, but he gets frustrated when a conversation partner doesn’t share the same openness to different perspectives, and so he asks for patience from the Lord.

But when he says, “Moses did not think as you say, but as I say,” while he does not deny that what either one of us says is true, then, O life of the poor, my God, whose bosom gives shelter to no contradiction, shower a soothing rain into my heart, that I may put up with such people patiently. For they do not say this to me because they are themselves divine and they see in the heart of your steward what they say, but because they are proud. They do not know Moses’s opinion, but they do love their own, not because it is true, but because it is theirs. Otherwise, they would love equally another true opinion, as I love what they say when they say the truth, not because it is they who say it, but because it is true; and therefore, because it is true, it does not really belong to them at all. But if they come to love it because it is true, then it is both theirs and mine, as it is the common possession of all who love the truth.

“They do love their own [opinion], not because it is true, but because it is theirs.” That’s key for Augustine here. He peels back the layers of doctrinal debate until he sees the motivation behind controversy. In our day, just as in Augustine’s, there are those who hold to their opinions with an improper level of certainty, as if they could see directly into the author’s mind. This is pride. It leads to rashness in theological debate.

But when they quarrel and say that Moses did not mean what I say, rather what they say, I will not have it, I do not love it. For even if they are correct, their rashness springs not from knowledge but from brazenness. Overblown pride, not insight, has begotten it. Therefore, O Lord, must we tremble at your judgments, since your truth is neither mine nor this man’s nor that man’s, but it belongs to us all, whom you have called as a people to share it in communion, and terrible is your warning to us not to hold it as a private thing, lest we be deprived of it.

Communal Nature of Bible Interpretation

Note the communal focus of biblical interpretation here. No one has a corner on the truth, he says. The truth comes wholly from God and belongs to the whole people of God. We need each other if we’re to interpret the Bible well. Humility requires openness to what our brothers and sisters glean from the text, something we may have missed.

How should we deal with believers who obstinately insist on a particular opinion and condemn all other reasonable interpretations consistent with orthodoxy? Augustine points to the Truth above all involved.

Hearken, O God, best Judge, Truth itself, hearken to what I shall say to this man who speaks against me. . . . For I would return to him this brotherly and peaceable reply: “If we both see that what you say is true, and if we both see that what I say is true, where, I ask, do we see it? I surely do not see it in you, nor do you see it in me, but we both see it in that unalterable Truth that stands above our minds. Then since we are not quarreling over that same light of our Lord God, why should we quarrel over the thought of our neighbor, which we cannot see as we see the unalterable truth? . . .”

See here, how doltish it is, among such a great plenty of opinions most true that we can gather from those words, to be so bold as to affirm which one of them Moses most likely meant, and with pernicious contentions to offend against the very same charity that moved him to say all the things we are trying to expound.

Seeking Truth with Love and Humility

As Augustine says elsewhere, the whole point of biblical interpretation is to increase our love for God and neighbor. We short-circuit this road to holiness when, in arrogance, we fail to show love and forbearance to our opponents. Even if we’re right—without love and humility, we’re wrong.

Augustine imagines a flowing stream of Truth. More than one truth can be drawn from that gushing water. We can draw from the river whatever truths are on offer, as long as they accord with the rule of faith.

It is like a rushing spring, pent up in a narrow place, whose flowing-forth is richer and feeds more streams over a wider expanse than does any one of the rivers that arise from it and that flow across many regions. So too your dispenser of truth, and his way of telling it, would profit many a preacher to come, and out of a narrow strait of speech would gush forth streams of truth pure and clear. From those streams every man may draw what truth he can, one man this and another man that, by longer river-bends of conversation.

I realize this view of textual interpretation may challenge us today because his premodern take does not confine the meaning of the text to whatever is most evident. He writes,

So when someone says, “Moses meant what I mean,” and someone else says, “No, he meant what I mean,” I think I can say with more reverence, “Why not what you both mean, if both opinions are true?” Why not a third opinion, and a fourth, and whatever else someone may see in these words that is true? Why not believe that he saw all of them?

Opening up oneself to multiple insights and various perspectives on a text raises the question of what interpretations should be given more weight. Augustine would point us to whatever is consistent with orthodoxy and in line with the greater aim of Scripture—to build up love for God and neighbor.

From Augustine, we learn to remain open to uncertainty in our interpretations because we’re fallible interpreters of God’s infallible Word, and because the purpose of theological debate should be growth in love and holiness. Here we find a posture of openness and humility—we take care to affirm basic matters of orthodoxy, but we remain circumspect in issuing “once-for-all” judgments in more contested areas. “Let there be no obstinate wrangling,” he writes, “but rather diligent seeking, humble asking, persistent knocking.”

Trevin Wax is vice president of research and resource development at the North American Mission Board and a visiting professor at Cedarville University. A former missionary to Romania, Trevin is a regular columnist at The Gospel Coalition and has contributed to The Washington Post, Religion News Service, World, and Christianity Today. He has taught courses on mission and ministry at Wheaton College and has lectured on Christianity and culture at Oxford University. He is a founding editor of The Gospel Project, has served as publisher for the Christian Standard Bible, and is currently a fellow for The Keller Center for Cultural Apologetics. He is the author of multiple books, including The Thrill of Orthodoxy, The Multi-Directional Leader, Rethink Your Self, This Is Our Time, and Gospel Centered Teaching. His podcast is Reconstructing Faith. He and his wife, Corina, have three children. You can follow him on Twitter or Facebook, or receive his columns via email.