Discipleship and Interpretation of Scripture

In his essay titled "The Interpretation of Scripture: Why Discipleship is Required", Stanley Hauerwas uses the Emmaus Road narrative to illustrate our inability to understand Scripture through our own knowledge. He asserts that our subjectivity as readers causes us to read the account of these two travelers walking with a stranger, unaware that this stranger is the risen son of God. It is this same arrogance that prompts us to claim that we can also understand Scripture simply by reading it. After all, “reasonable persons are able to see the facts if their minds are not clouded.” (HR 257) Yet, he refutes these presuppositions, saying that the Emmaus Road account does not highlight our superiority to these ignorant disciples, rather it questions us in relation to our own understanding of Scripture. “Scripture will not be self-interpreting or plain in its meaning unless we have been transformed in order to be capable of reading it.”(HR 257) For, if we do not truly know and see Christ in the Word, then we too could converse with Jesus without knowing it. But what is it about Scripture that we do not truly understand?

Hauerwas believes, and I would affirm, that the core of all of Scripture is the resurrection of Christ. All of our misunderstandings begin on this level. And mainly, they come about because of our inability to see the weakness of Christ in the crucifixion, and from our unwillingness to chase after him in that same fate. He recalls a conversation between Clarence Jordan, founder of Koinonia Farms, and Robert Jordan, his brother and a lawyer with political aspirations. When asked if he would represent the integrated farm against the blatant racism committed against them by the gas company, Robert said no. Clarence then charged him with Christ’s example on the cross, and Robert responded in saying that “I follow him to the cross, but not on the cross. I’m not getting myself crucified.”(HR 258) Hauerwas makes the point that there are many in the church that would affirm the crucifixion and resurrection and admire Christ for those acts, but would not be willing to follow Christ in those acts.

This interaction between the Jordan brothers reminds me of the situation currently going on in my hometown of Bellefontaine, Ohio. Unfortunately our small town has been all over the news lately because Samuel Littleton murdered his girlfriend’s daughter in her home, then stole a car, kidnapped an elderly couple, and murdered them on his way to West Virginia to hide out with family. He dumped their bodies in Tennessee and Georgia in his efforts to elude the police. Our town has really come together over this situation and supported the families throughout the search for the bodies and the search for Samuel. During one particular prayer vigil that was broadcast, a local minister that I know prayed that God would bring his wrath down on Samuel. I was shocked. While I understand that the Mennonite Church is a peace church and it may have been unusual that we were praying for him, I was surprised to hear that a member of the clergy would publically pronounce wrath on this man, in spite of the evil he committed. I cannot begin to understand the pain that the families are going through. The mother must be experiencing extreme guilt that she dated the man who would eventually kill her daughter for thirteen years. The two children of the deceased will have to grow up knowing their mother was murdered. And the Russels, the older couple that was murdered, were supposed to live out the last of their days at peace and enjoy life and marriage, not suffer in this way. The repercussions of these events will be felt for a long time. And yet, despite my human urges for vengeance, I cannot help but know that Christ calls us to compassion. Everyone is deserving of grace, even in these circumstances. And I think about if Samuel faces trial in Ohio, will he receive the death penalty? And which churches in our area will support that? And what should my response be? I don’t want to disrespect the victims in this crime, but I don’t want to support or sit idly by if the community rallies together for this man’s death. And just like Robert Jordan, I wonder if I too will get crucified over this.

But this is the calling we receive as disciples. It is not the calling that we would choose. It is not even the calling that we would read in Scripture. Which is why Hauerwas makes the point: Scripture can only be understood in community. The two travelers were searching for a Messiah that would come in power. They could not understand the power that Jesus exemplified in weakness. Hauerwas asks “What does resurrection have to do with the liberation of Israel?” He then pointedly answers, “Resurrection is not the politics for which they had looked. So they could not see the resurrected Jesus exactly because the resurrected Jesus embodied the politics of a kingdom for which they were unprepared.”(HR 261) He then uses Isaiah 52 and 53 as proof texts for the true nature of Christ, the nature which the prophets spoke about. And yet, a majority of the Jewish people did not interpret it in this way. And so, Hauerwas concludes that the reason that the disciples did not recognize Jesus resurrected was because his post-resurrection nature came as a “stranger” to them. (HR 260) They were unprepared for the reality of the Messiah. The reality that they knew, the one that was plain before their eyes, was not who God was. There exegesis was subjective in nature because they read Scripture through the eyes of the world. So, Hauerwas posits, “in order to recognize the Messiah, this crucified and risen Jesus, we need training and instruction.”(HR 260)

Hauerwas then sets up what appears to be a modern analogy to the Emmaus Road encounter. He posits an antithetical relationship between the quest for a historical Jesus and Eucharist, in which the academic pursuit celebrates the absence of Christ and the Eucharist celebrates the presence. I struggled with this section. While I recognize the damage done in the Jesus Seminars when the sayings of Christ are subject to rocks and dissection, I cannot help but acknowledge the legitimacy in viewing Scripture through this lens. This could be my recent seminary experience speaking, but there are historic realities to the Scripture that could affect our understanding of the person of Jesus. I do appreciate that he says “the search for the historical Jesus is a substitute for the willingness to share in the life of Christ. It presumes that if we could just get the facts right we could really make up our minds about whether our life could be fully shaped by the Kingdom that is determined by this man’s life.”(HR 264) I appreciate his observations because too often in historical-critical study one is forced to decide allegiance to Christ based on evidence and fact rather than faith. However, I also believe this is subjective argument unfairly tinted by his theological stance over and against the historical-critical method. I recognize that Hauerwas likes to exaggerate to make a point (and even to rile people up), but this only goes to further the chasm that exists between the academic study of theology and the academic critical study of Scripture. It is frustrating as one who appreciates both to have to choose sides rather than to seek compromise. Not to mention that neither side is too interested in bringing their studies down to a lay level. So the average parishioner has no idea that these debates go on. And valuable theological and critical work gets lost in the general Christian population because they cannot work together nor can they condescend to help others understand. Alright, that is my soapbox, and that is all for now.