Dr. James Voelz is one of the most arrogant professors the LCMS has ever had. That would not be the most terrible quality for a man faithful and subservient to Scripture. But Voelz is an academic through and through and has advocated for a wicked postmodern approach to Scripture. According to his textbook and recent emails (published here in CN by request), Voelz seems shocked that he could be critiqued and treats the critics of his public theological teaching as though they have privately sinned against him. All this belies an insecurity—because published words will stand much longer than an author will be able to defend them.
Voelz’ entire approach to Scripture can be categorized as magisterial. It is compatible with a secular approach—one that has landed him academic kudos but has not benefited the church in the training of humble pastors.
In his controversial hermeneutics book—now decades old—he casually compares reading Scripture to reading any other merely human document: “The interpretation of legal documents is greatly akin to scriptural interpretation, and many of the issues currently confronting Biblical interpreters confront interpreters of, e.g., the United States Constitution.” (What Does This Mean?: Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Post-Modern World, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1995; 2nd rev. ed., 1997, 13). That is un-Christian and tantamount to a denial of Scripture’s divine inspiration. The Spirit who gave Scripture is also needed today by a reader to understand it (1 Cor. 2:14).
Citing (questionable and possible pagan) academics, Voelz also says, “It is apparent that scholars increasingly question whether there is only one original text for a given [biblical] book” (What Does This Mean?, 80).
As I have written previously:
Inspiration is not an ongoing process, it has to do with the historical writing of particular words. We can safely assume that the existing words in our Bibles had a beginning. Only by faith in His words can we trust that the Spirit is the origin of them. All arguments against Scripture based on distance from the originals is historical criticism. Man’s decision, even by the smartest scholars, cannot validate anything as God’s Word. The originals would not create more faith than our copies of copies, nor would they satisfy insatiable critics. (Confessing the Scriptural Christ against Modern Idolatry: Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Truth in Scientific and Biblical Conflict, 146)
His appropriation of Herman Sasse’s flawed christological analogy for Scripture, allowing for a divine and human nature (though written by sinners), is also in the same work of Voelz (Robert Preus demolishes this sloppy line of argumentation in his 1955 The Inspiration of Scripture). Christ’s human nature is sinless, while the “human nature of Scripture” is contrasted with the divine in the watering down of the basic nature of Scripture. Human words are not eternally united with God’s Word, so the analogy does injustice to Scripture and also Christ’s eternal union. Jeffery Kloha, by the way, cites Voelz as a major influence on his understanding of the Bible on this very issue. Walther also addressed this lazy pseudo-theology in the strongest words:
Beware, beware, I say, of this “divine–human” Scripture. It is the devil’s mask. For eventually it constructs such a Bible after which I would not wish to call myself a Bible Christian. Henceforth the Bible is nothing more than any other good book which I must read with constant and diligent examination lest I be counseled in error. (Robert D. Preus, “Walther and the Scriptures,” Concordia Theological Monthly. 32:11. 1961, 674).
Voelz does not propose unity within Scripture but allows for contrast, a boon to the scholar who does not want to be bound by particular words: “one cannot become ‘Docetist’ on this matter: the Scriptures still are products of human authors writing from a particular perspective at a particular point in time. . . . the divine and human authorships of the books of sacred Scripture always present themselves in creative tension” (What Does This Mean?, 242). This is evil and allows for multiple, conflicting theologies—making in effect multiple words of God instead of being bound by the one, holy Word of God. We confess in the Nicene Creed that the Spirit spoke through the prophets, not that the Spirit and human author were co-authors in “creative tension”—allowing academics to fill the void.
Since the Scriptures are implied to be unclear (you will search in vain for a section on the clarity or perspicuity of Scripture in Voelz’ What Does This Mean?), the Confessions are made to the necessary lens through which to view the Scriptures. In my readings of Voelz it would be impossible to write the Lutheran Confessions, or come to their conclusions, without first having them. But the history of the Lutheran church says otherwise.
The positive embrace of the postmodernism has also been destructive. It’s emphasis on narratives in place of propositional truth claims is corrosive, as it is critical eye toward authority and universal truth. Rather than correcting it, Voelz went with the culture and academic flow.
The fruit of Voelz’ writing and teaching has eroded confidence in Scripture and led to many pastors thinking Scripture is not a limitation upon their authority and practice but an unclear license to do what is right in their own eyes. —ed.
Christian News 