Back in the early 1990′s I had the opportunity to review a book by Doug Wilson (which I did not like in any way) called, Law and Love: Constructive Criticism for Reconstructionists, (Moscow, Idaho: Ransom Press, n.d.) A short booklet which makes three objections to Reconstructionist writings, i.e. in regard to tone, humility, and exegetical method (namely – The Interpretive Maximalism of James Jordan), and offers Biblical counsel in each of these areas. From what I remember of the book, and subsequent conversations I had with Doug about the issue not long after it was published – he had grave concerns about Jordan’s biblical hermeneutic. From his perspective, at the time, he didn’t see how Jordan’s interpretations of various passages and the connections he was making between passages were limited by any meaningful rules of interpretation. Thus, a maximal approach, as he called it, could potentially make a text say whatever the interpreter decided, without regard to what the biblical author intended to communicate.

Doug has obviously changed his perspective on Jordan’s works, especially, Through New Eyes.

Through New Eyes

by James B. Jordan

Jordan wrote an article for the Biblical Horizons Newsletter that explain some of what he understood  Interpretive Minimalism to be: No. 9: What Is “Interpretive Maximalism”?

I understand the value of Doug’s analysis of Interpretive Maximalism and Interpretive Minimalism, but it is certainly true that those who would advocate Interpretive Minimalism also find things in the text that simply are not there – usually “religious” stuff as moderns understand “religion” or psychological lessons. Interpretive Minimalism interpretations of the OT text, for example, can be quite fantastic and imaginative when it comes to pulling out psychological lessons from stories.

The Minimum and Maximum labels are only marginally helpful because it makes them even, like both have an equal amount of usefulness and problems. It also implies some kind of middle ground that’s to be preferred. We should want to get it all, even if it means grabbing some weeds with the fruit, because the difference between the two methods of interpretation is that Minimalism doesn’t want to get it all, but the “too far” of Maximalism will only grow for a time before it withers away. Interpretive Maximalism solves its own problems.

Once person interacting with Doug’s video said: “If were changed the terms to One Eyed Interpretation and Two Eyes (two new eyes) Interpretation there’d be a different response.”

Tags: Doug Wilson, hermeneutics, Interpretive Maximallism, James B. Jordan