Wisdom of the Ages

David Curtis Steinmetz (1936–2015) was a distinguished historian of Christianity, renowned for his pioneering work in the field of Reformation studies. Born in Schenectady, New York, Steinmetz earned his Ph.D. from Harvard University under the mentorship of the eminent church historian Heiko A. Oberman. His academic career was defined by a commitment to understanding the theology and practice of the early Protestant reformers, particularly figures like Martin Luther and John Calvin.

One of Steinmetz’s most influential contributions was his advocacy for the “pre-critical” interpretation of Scripture, a perspective that sought to recover how early modern theologians read and understood the Bible before the rise of modern critical methods. This approach is best exemplified in his landmark essay, “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis,” which challenged modern assumptions about biblical interpretation and highlighted the rich theological insights of the reformers and their medieval predecessors. A number of his important essays were collected in Taking the Long View: Christian Theology in Historical Perspective (2011).

According to Steinmetz, medieval and patristic approaches offer a richer understanding of Scripture. He begins by critiquing Benjamin Jowett’s (1817-1893) 19th-century insistence that biblical texts have a single, original meaning intended by their human authors. Jowett’s approach sought to reduce Scripture to its historical context, dismissing the theological and spiritual interpretations embraced by pre-modern exegetes.

Steinmetz counters Jowett by defending the multi-layered hermeneutics of medieval theologians. These scholars, drawing on Pauline distinctions between “letter” and “spirit” (2 Cor. 3:6), believed that a text could possess multiple valid meanings—historical, allegorical, moral, and anagogical. For instance, they interpreted Psalm 137’s lament over Babylon as a metaphor for the Christian’s spiritual exile and hope for God’s eternal kingdom, transcending its historical context.

Steinmetz highlights a number of notable figures, such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, who grounded spiritual interpretations in the literal sense of Scripture while expanding its significance. He also discusses Nicholas of Lyra’s (1270-1349) theory of a “double literal sense,” where a biblical passage could hold both an immediate historical meaning and a prophetic one.

To illustrate medieval exegetical rigor, Steinmetz analyzes their interpretations of the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matt. 20:1–16). From Thomas Aquinas to Martin Luther, exegetes offered varied but theologically coherent readings, emphasizing God’s generosity and grace. Steinmetz contrasts this with modern exegesis, which often limits itself to the intentions of the original author, a method he critiques as historically naive and spiritually impoverished.

Ultimately, Steinmetz defends pre-critical exegesis as a holistic approach that meets the spiritual needs of the Christian community. He argues that the historical-critical method, while valuable, cannot fully capture the theological depth of Scripture without a broader hermeneutical framework.

Miss Marple, Mystery, and Meaning

In another essay, “Miss Marple Reads the Bible,” Steinmetz draws an engaging analogy between mystery novels and biblical interpretation. He argues that both traditional Christian exegesis and detective fiction involve constructing “second narratives” to make sense of seemingly disordered stories. This essay extends the themes of his earlier “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis,” contrasting modern historical-critical methods with premodern approaches that integrate theological insights into scriptural interpretation.

Steinmetz compares the concluding explanations of detectives like Miss Marple or Hercule Poirot to the New Testament’s retelling of Old Testament narratives. In a mystery, the investigator’s final revelation retroactively organizes the story’s scattered details, revealing the plot’s true coherence. Similarly, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ reframe Israel’s narrative, giving it deeper theological meaning.

Traditional exegesis reads earlier biblical texts in light of later developments, while historical criticism resists such retrospective interpretation, striving to situate texts in their original contexts. Steinmetz critiques this division, suggesting that historical criticism, like a detective story without resolution, leaves readers with fragmented narratives rather than a unified understanding of Scripture.

Indeed, Steinmetz notes that the early Church’s rule of faith functioned as a “second narrative,” guiding Christians in interpreting the Bible. Figures like Irenaeus and Tertullian rejected heretical reinterpretations that lacked this cohesive framework. The Church Fathers’ confidence in their second narrative stemmed from their apostolic succession, which guaranteed continuity with the teachings of the apostles.

Interestingly, he also observes that historians, like detectives, construct second narratives to explain historical events. He challenges the notion that Scripture has a single, original meaning tied to its author’s intent. Instead, Steinmetz asserts that historians must account for how events unfolded, drawing meaning from their consequences. This method parallels how early Christians read the Old Testament in light of Christ’s fulfillment.

Steinmetz concludes by emphasizing that biblical scholars who are also theologians should focus less on avoiding anachronism and more on constructing compelling second narratives. While Old Testament figures like Isaiah could not foresee Christ, their writings gain fuller meaning in light of the gospel. This layered interpretation reflects the complexity of Scripture and honors its theological depth.

Designing the Debate

In another excellent essay in this volume, Steinmetz examines the contentious discussion surrounding the theory of intelligent design (ID) and its implications for theology and biblical interpretation. This essay connects with themes from “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis” and “Miss Marple Reads the Bible” by emphasizing the importance of interpretation frameworks and questioning the limits of reason in understanding divine truths.

Steinmetz defines intelligent design as the theory that the universe’s complexity necessitates a designing intellect. Although proponents claim it is religiously neutral, its strongest advocates are often conservative Christians, who see Genesis as a scientific account. Steinmetz highlights the tension between a literal reading of creation and the broader theological understanding of God as Creator.

Drawing on Origen, Steinmetz critiques the assumption that Genesis offers a straightforward historical account. Origen argued for reading creation as “truth in the semblance of history,” rejecting literal interpretations of details like God walking in Eden. This perspective parallels Steinmetz’s earlier defense of multi-layered scriptural meanings, emphasizing that theological truths often transcend historical facts.

Steinmetz contrasts Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin on the possibility of knowing God through natural theology. Aquinas believed reason could infer a First Cause, but Calvin was rightly skeptical, arguing that sin distorts human perception of divine truth. For Calvin, nature’s testimony to God’s glory requires the “spectacles of Scripture” to be properly understood, reinforcing the dependence on faith and divine revelation.

While ID proponents claim their arguments are based solely on empirical evidence, Steinmetz identifies their work as a form of natural theology, implicitly theological despite attempts to avoid religious identification. He critiques their claim that evidence for design leads to belief in a designer, suggesting instead that faith shapes how evidence is interpreted.

Nevertheless, Steinmetz concludes by affirming the world as “the theater of God’s glory.” He encourages Christians to celebrate creation intelligently and rejects the antagonism between evolution and theology.

Why the Past Matters to the Church

Perhaps the most important essays in this collection are those toward the back of the book. In “The Necessity of the Past,” Steinmetz explores the importance of historical consciousness for both the church and society. He contrasts America’s forward-looking ethos with the church’s reliance on past events, arguing that a proper understanding of the Christian faith requires an acknowledgment of the past’s decisive role.

The American tendency to disregard the past has led to something like a cultural amnesia. This forward-looking ethos contrasts sharply with the church’s dependence on historical events, such as the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The church’s identity is inseparable from these foundational moments, which remain central to its faith and mission.

Memory, according to Steinmetz, is essential for the church’s identity and mission. He argues that Christian faith is rooted in historical events rather than abstract philosophical or ethical systems. The resurrection of Christ, for instance, is not merely a symbolic story but a concrete event upon which the church’s theology and practice are built. Forgetting this past risks undermining the church’s present and future relevance.

Steinmetz acknowledges that the church’s understanding of Scripture is shaped by its historical traditions. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity is a product of the church’s reflection on biblical texts, not a direct scriptural teaching. While tradition can clarify the Gospel, it can also obscure it if left unexamined. The study of church history provides Christians with the tools to critically assess their inherited beliefs and practices.

Indeed, Steinmetz presents church history as a vital theological discipline that liberates Christians from narrow parochialism. By engaging with diverse traditions and examining their historical development, Christians gain a broader and more self-critical perspective on their faith. This historical awareness enables the church to balance fidelity to its origins with the demands of contemporary contexts.

Steinmetz warns that losing touch with the past results in aimlessness and despair. Just as individuals lose their identity without memory, so too does the church risk losing its mission if it forgets its historical foundations.

History as a Lens for Faith and Understanding

In the final essay of this collection, Steinmetz reflects on the historical methodologies of Jaroslav Pelikan and Heiko Oberman, two eminent 20th-century historians of Christianity. Steinmetz uses their contrasting approaches to illuminate broader themes about the role of history in theological reflection and the importance of engaging with the past on its own terms. This essay ties together themes from Steinmetz’s previous works, particularly the necessity of historical awareness, the interplay between faith and reason, and the value of tradition in understanding Scripture and doctrine.

Steinmetz contrasts Pelikan’s expansive vision of the entire Christian past with Oberman’s focused study of the late medieval and Reformation periods. Pelikan sought to correct Adolf von Harnack’s reductionist view of Christian history, which emphasized ethics over theology. In response, Pelikan presented a richer, more theologically grounded narrative that included Byzantine and post-Reformation traditions. Oberman, on the other hand, emphasized historical context and intellectual rigor, advocating for a “social history of ideas” that situates theological developments within their broader cultural and political environments.

Steinmetz also more directly critiques Harnack’s attempt to distill Christianity into a simple moral message, arguing that this approach neglects the theological richness of doctrines like the Trinity and Christology. By stripping Christianity of its metaphysical framework, Harnack flattened its historical and doctrinal complexity, a mistake Pelikan sought to rectify through his multivolume history of doctrine.

Both Pelikan and Oberman emphasized the importance of “going native” when studying the past—immersing oneself in the languages, customs, and intellectual frameworks of historical figures. Steinmetz underscores that empathy for the past enables historians to present an accurate and nuanced picture, avoiding the temptation to impose modern categories or values onto historical narratives.

For Steinmetz, history is not merely an academic exercise but a vital resource for the church. By engaging critically with the past, the church can recover forgotten insights and navigate contemporary challenges with a deeper understanding of its traditions. While love for the subject can provide unique insights, it must be tempered by rigorous analysis. This interplay between commitment and critique enables historians and theologians to engage the past faithfully and constructively.

Taking the Long View serves as a capstone to Steinmetz’s reflections on the importance of historical consciousness in theology. It ties together his critiques of modern reductionism, his defense of pre-critical exegesis, and his call for a deeper engagement with tradition. By highlighting the methodological rigor of Pelikan and Oberman, Steinmetz underscores the transformative power of history to enrich both scholarship and faith.