Most American Protestants, whether liberal or evangelical, are egalitarians when it comes to the reading and study of Scripture. They tend to be committed to the American proposition that "all men"-and women-"are created equal" not simply because they are patriotic or democratic but also because their doctrine of Scripture drives them to it. The logic runs like this: Because the Bible is clear, anyone who can read its words should be able to understand its meaning, no matter what the reader's education or social status. This egalitarianism has produced some laudable results. For example, it keeps ordinary Christians reading the Scriptures so that they, like Timothy, may thus be made "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15). Individual Scriptural reading is also one of the means by which God instructs and encourages Christians and thus gives them hope (see Rom. 15:4). Moreover, we, like the Bereans, surely are to be commended when we turn to the Scriptures to check whether what is being preached to us is true (see Acts 17:11). Yet Protestant egalitarianism is also, at the same time, the source of significant errors. One of these errors involves egalitarianism's failure to recognize that not everything in Scripture is easy to understand and so we need those people who are especially well-trained in the Scriptures to help us avoid twisting them in harmful ways (see 2 Pet. 3:16). The fact is that some people are better equipped to interpret the Bible than others-and so their interpretations, everything else being equal, are to be preferred over the interpretations of the average Peter, Paul, or Mary.
The egalitarian error is illustrated by the ethic of those small-group Bible studies where everyone's insight carries equal weight. But a better example comes from a more prominent corner of the Protestant world where this kind of egalitarianism collides with the hierarchies that most Americans use to negotiate modern life. The phrase "the integration of faith and learning" is a constant source of inspiration and self-examination at many Christian colleges. Administrators stress its importance as a way of attracting new students who, it is promised, upon graduation will be able to think Christianly about themselves and the world. Christian college faculty are required to integrate their own faith and learning in order to get tenure and promotion. Students are also expected to show the influence of these endeavors in their papers and exams.
But one of the weaknesses in this ideal, as laudable as it may be, is that the faculty who are responsible for modeling the integration of faith and learning often have only a Sunday school knowledge of the Bible while possessing Ph.D.-level training in their own academic disciplines. What kind of integration of faith and learning goes on, then, when Christian college professors have the equivalent of a secondary school knowledge of Christianity but are experts in some academic discipline? I'm not asking this question to suggest remedies for Christian college administrators. I ask it to show the unfortunate consequences of a notion about the Bible's clarity and accessibility that puts all of its interpreters on the same level. Christian colleges would not hire professors of physics whose proficiency in physics stopped with a high school degree. In fact, most American Protestants who believe in the equality of all biblical interpreters at the same time demand expertise and professionalism in other walks of life. They look for the best surgeon when needing a tumor removed, the best lawyer when going to court, and even the superior ice cream when planning for dessert. But apparently when it comes to the Bible, questions of expertise and proficiency are not essential.
Study to Show Yourself Approved or Just Average?
One of the favorite proof texts for the egalitarian outlook on biblical interpretation is 2 Timothy 2:15. In this verse the Apostle Paul is instructing his disciple, Timothy, to devote himself to serious scriptural study. To be sure, Christians should study and know their Bibles. Yet this verse comes from a letter written to a minister. So although this particular verse may be instructive for all believers, it actually teaches that Timothy, as a minister of the gospel, should devote himself to the study of God's Word. Indeed, the fact that this verse is addressed to a church officer, informing him of his official responsibilities, has important implications for thinking about the Bible's clarity and accessibility. Ironically, these implications run counter to how the verse is generally used.
John Calvin saw the ministerial implications of Paul's instructions in 2 Timothy. His comments correct the egalitarian impulse of American Protestantism. Calvin specifically addressed those who used this passage to suggest that a layperson's interpretation of the Bible was just as good as a minister's. For instance, some of them asked, "Since we should be satisfied with the Word of God alone, what purpose is served by having sermons every day, or even by having the office of pastor? Hasn't everyone got opportunities to read the Bible?" Calvin answered that God assigned to ministers of the Word "the duty of dividing or cutting, as if a father, in giving food to his children, were dividing the bread, by cutting it into small pieces." For Calvin, it was not sufficient for each Christian to read the Bible in private. Instead, "the doctrine drawn from [the Bible] must be preached to us," he wrote, "in order that we may be well informed." Individual Bible reading often can be enhanced by hearkening to the sort of expert reading required of ministers.
Calvin went on to explain the metaphor of "dividing" or "cutting aright" the Word of God. Unskillful interpreters of the bread of life, Calvin suggested, were like carvers who would cut food in such a way as to leave "the pith and marrow"-or the weighty parts of significance-"untouched." "Some mutilate it, others tear it, others torture it, others break it in pieces," Calvin complained, while "others, keeping by the outside . . . never come to the soul of doctrine." But ministers, according to Paul's intention in this passage, had a higher standard for their work. They were to exposit the Word skillfully, in a manner that builds up the saints.
The implication of Calvin's reading of this passage is twofold. First, some Christians, namely ministers, are called to interpret and explain the Bible. It is their vocation-or their full-time Christian service. Since not every Christian is called to the ministry, the work of interpreting Scripture by lay believers is more like an avocation than a full-time occupation. This means that lay believers should most often defer to the experts who study the Bible for a living. This is not to say that ministers' interpretations are perfect, nor does it deny the work of the Holy Spirit in applying the Word to the hearts of all believers, both ministers and laity. But it is to say that lay believers have good reason to hearken to, and be grateful for, ministers who are devoting their whole lives to "rightly dividing the word of truth."
The second implication follows directly from the idea that the vocation of minister carries with it the idea that a minister is supposed to become an expert in rightly dividing God's Word. Ministers may be reckoned as persons who are, so to speak, professionals in reading and interpreting the Bible. So their calling and office suggest that there is a hierarchy among the various readings of Scripture. All interpretations of the Bible are not equal. Some are better than others, with the ones stemming from training and professional experience usually ranking higher than amateur readings.
In any case, Paul's instruction to divide correctly the "word of truth" is not an argument for all Christians to be held to the same standard regarding their mastery of God's Word. It implies that all believers should give greater credence to those who make a living at rightly dividing Scripture.
Elitist or Responsible?
The objections to such a perspective on interpreting the Bible are significant and not easily answered. As mentioned at the outset, many American Protestants believe that the Bible, because of its clarity, must be readily accessible to all believers. If reading the Bible requires expertise, then it must not be clear. Closely related to this objection is Protestant belief in the priesthood of all believers. Some assume that because all Christians have a special standing before God they are equally equipped to mine Scripture's riches. Then there is the evangelistic mandate of the Great Commission, which also presumes that, since all believers are to follow their Lord's instructions to teach the nations, they must all be able to understand the Bible well.
Yet perhaps the greatest objection is the fear of Catholicism. If we admit that some people may have a vocation to study Scripture and so are better at interpreting it than others, then isn't this the same as Roman Catholic priestcraft? Lyman Beecher, the New England Congregationalist minister, articulated a form of this argument in A Plea for the West (1834). The growth of Roman Catholicism in America made Beecher nervous, but he believed that an egalitarian approach to the Bible would solve the Catholic problem. He wrote of the new American Catholics: "If they could read the Bible, and might and did, their darkened intellect would brighten, and their bowed mind would rise. If they dared to think for themselves, the contrast of protestant independence with their thraldom, would awaken the desire of equal privileges, and put an end to an arbitrary clerical dominion over trembling minds." On this basis, American Protestants have been reluctant to concede that some interpretations of the Bible are better than others-and especially to expect ministers to render the best ones. To admit such a hierarchy is presumably to enslave the average reader.
Ironically, however, these same Protestants have little trouble acknowledging the superiority of human efforts in other activities, even religious ones. Congregations call upon experts in church growth to advise on outreach, worship committees consult with professionals on electronics and music to enhance services, and believers look to trained Christian counselors for help with life's spiritual struggles. When it comes to understanding the Bible, though, it appears to be every believer for himself or herself.
But instead of regarding the proficiency of those called to study and apply the Word of God as an imposition, why not look at it as a gift from God? Of course, believers may become lazy and let experts do work that they should and may ordinarily perform in the duties of Christian devotion. Moreover, the recognition that there are experts in the study of Scripture should not be used to undermine the Bible's clarity in those things, as the Westminster Confession says, "which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation" (1.vii). Even so, the Westminster Divines added, on the authority of 2 Peter 3:16, "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all" (1.vii). For that reason, it is a blessing to have ministers of the Word who, like fathers, rightly cut the bread of life for God's children. To lean on the insights and wisdom of those more learned in Scripture than we are is not necessarily a bad thing. It is, in fact, part of God's gracious provision for his people.
