RESEARCH AT ANDREWS The canonical theological method under- inductive method, he systematically analyzed stands “canon” to mean both rule of faith and all the flagged verses, looking for patterns. His a unified collection or corpus, namely the analysis factored in “how words were used in biblical text. For Peckham, “Scripture is the the text both thematically and conceptually. canon because it consists of just those writ- It opened up an abundance of word groups ings that God divinely commissioned to be related to delight and pleasure, which are canonical in the sense of a rule of faith. And closely associated with love.” if God commissioned them to be canonical in He eventually came to five aspects of divine the sense of faith, what else should we build love, which are distributed across the various our theology on?” canonical sections (law, writings, prophets, This method posits that, if one takes the etc.). “I also used secondary sources, going canon as the rule, all interpretations must through commentaries on both sides of the continually be measured against the canon. historical critical argument, and developed a Individuals may not come to the same model that responded to the questions about John Peckham interpretation and may in fact disagree, and, divine love,” he says. He then used that model Peckham argues, “our interpretations will to flesh out the implications for the God-world never be final. This is not a problem, rather “I found many things that relationship. it’s an opportunity to continually reform contradicted what I would Peter Lang first published Peckham’s find- and correct our views so that they are in line ings in his edited dissertation, “The Concept with Scripture.” have thought, which was of Divine Love in the God World Relationship” While modern scholars took a stance of comforting, because it led (2014). “The Love of God,” which builds on “hermeneutical positivism,” believing that me to believe that I wasn’t his doctoral research, was published in 2015 everyone could come to the same conclu- and won Intervarsity Press’s Reader’s Choice sions if they read the text using a certain imposing my view on the Award. In November of this year, Eerdmans method, Peckham acknowledges that read- text all the time.” will publish his book “Canonical Theol- ing the biblical text is far more complicated. ogy: The Biblical Canon, Sola Scriptura and He also disagrees with communitarians, Theological Method,” an expansion of the who argue for the community or its creeds The second circle “is the circle between canonical theological methodology he devel- to play the role of “normative interpretive the individual parts of Scripture, or micro- oped for his dissertation. arbiter,” reading the text through the lens exegesis, and the canon as a whole.” The Peckham is now coming full circle to the of the Nicene or other ecumenical creeds in reader’s presuppositions affect how they read topic that originally sparked his interest: order to reach a consensus. the individual texts and their reading of the the problem of pain. Using the same induc- “The problem with the communitarian individual texts informs the understanding of tive method, he has systematically surveyed view is that if you say there is an extra- the canon as a whole. “Both should be work- the entire biblical text for relevant peri- canonical normative interpretive arbiter of ing together in a reciprocally helpful spiral copes and is now analyzing the themes and Scripture, then what truly has functional in a way that the reading of the canon never patterns that have emerged from the text. authority? Scripture can only say what the imposes on the individual texts.” Before him lies a laborious journey through interpretive arbiter allows it to say,” he Exegetically, there may be more than one the data he has gathered. explains. Peckham rejects isolationism, the acceptable reading. But, Peckham suggests, For Peckham, the theological landscape idea that every individual becomes their own “the canonical reading can help choose changes with his deepening understanding interpreter, as well. “We have to recognize between those options. If the canon is a con- of biblical literature and each new project that there is a proper role for the community, gruent corpus, there may be only one or two he tackles. “Classical Theology,” he says, it’s just not determinative or final.” options in a given pericope that fit with what “was trying to build a cathedral that they So how do we interpret the Scriptures? the rest of the canon says.” could defend. I use the analogy of a moving Peckham suggests looking at the interpretive He applied the canonical theological wilderness sanctuary. We aren’t trying to process as a “hermeneutical spiral,” which method in his research on divine love, taking build all the structures of ontology and epis- he defines as “a continual spiral at two great care to allow his questions of the text temology, not that we don’t speak to these levels of what are called the hermeneuti- to be shaped by the canonical investigation. areas, but we don’t answer all the questions cal circles.” In the first circle, there are two “I found many things that contradicted what these areas raise because we might not parties: the reader and the text. The reader I would have thought, which was comfort- have enough data to answer all of them to brings presuppositions to the text, “but the ing, because it led me to believe that I wasn’t our satisfaction. We want to move with our text affects the reader and, if it is a canonical imposing my view on the text all the time,” he understanding of the canon.” text, the reader should always submit to the says with a laugh. text. It is a kind of disposition towards the Peckham worked his way through the 1 John C. Peckham, “The Love of God: A Canonical Model” (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press text; an intentional posture that you take, entire Bible, flagging any texts that related Academic, 2015), 15 not just a methodological step.” to the questions he was asking. Using this 8—Summer 2016, Volume 7.