Many of the controversial religious debates of our day grow out of disagreements about how to interpret scripture correctly. Is it a historical or theological text? How do we address the apparent contradictions? In Anglican Approaches to Scripture , the sequel to ATB Book of the Year Christian Hope and Christian Life , Greer shows the multi-layered Anglican tradition of what scripture is and how it is to be interpreted.
This is a good overview of how Anglicans tend to read Scriptures, although the conclusion (or Inconsclusve Conclusion as Rowan Greer calls is) really amounts to there is no one way. For someone who hangs around for any amount of time in Anglican circles, that is hardly a surprising conclusion to make. Any church that can juggle evangelicals and Anglo-Catholic, liberals and conservatives in the same structure is one which is not going to have widespread agreement about how to read anything, much less Scripture. It just isn't going to happen.
Still, it is good to see the varying approaches, particularly with consideration of that three-legged stool of Scripture, reason and tradition we hear so much about in Anglicanism. Clearly, there is a tendency among Anglicans to lean on one leg or the other to the point that one wonders why the stool just doesn't break. Yet, somehow we muddle along.
I also appreciated the insight on the historical-critical method which resonates with my own suspicions about its approach. I particularly enjoyed his comment that 'Liberal Protestant' approach epitomized by the Jesus Seminar fails to convince classicists- being one and being sceptical about some of what I've seen.
I'm a little non-plussed by the deliberate refusal to conclude, but that doesn't necessarily decrease the value of the book.