The Hermeneutic Principle of Coolness
Introduction
Recently, I’ve been lending more and more credence to a somewhat strange and perhaps controversial principle when interpreting Scripture. When I was discussing the age of the earth with someone recently, I described it as defaulting to whatever sounds cooler. Of course, there’s much more to it than that, but that’s the basic idea. When I am torn between two or more competing ideas about a particular topic, I lean towards whichever one inspires more awe. I know it sounds weird — and it certainly has its dangers, but I really think there’s quite a bit of merit to this approach to interpreting Scripture.
Motivation and Purpose
When seeking to understand something, it helps to know the reason, purpose, or end of that thing. It’s like looking for the motive of a crime. In the same way, if we can identify God’s motivations and Scripture’s purpose, we will be more equipped to understand God and Scripture.
So why does God do the things he does? I think Scripture is pretty clear that God does all things for his glory. Before the beginning of the world, God “predestined us for adoption . . . to the praise of his glorious grace” (Ephesians 1:5-6). When he fashioned the heavens, he crafted them to “declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1). God raised up Pharaoh so that his “name may be proclaimed in all the earth” (Exodus 9:16). He defers his anger for his “name’s sake” (Isaiah 48:9). Jesus claims to die to glorify the Father (John 12:28). Paul writes that God raised Christ from the dead and exalted him ultimately “to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:11). And Paul also says that Christ will return “to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed” (2 Thessalonians 1:10). The list goes on.
And if God does all things for his glory, that would include his revelation in Scripture. As the Westminster Shorter Catechism teaches, not only is man’s chief end to “glorify God and enjoy him forever,” but Scripture is the “only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.”
If this is true, it’s easy to see the wisdom in looking for interpretations of Scripture that make God more glorious. If God’s fundamental motivation is his glory and Scripture’s primary purpose is to help us glorify God, every interpretation of Scripture should be measured against this end. For any given interpretation, we ought to ask, “Does this interpretation further God’s glory? Does it make his name great? Does it inspire worship? Does it beget awe, wonder, or gratitude? Is it cool?”
Coolness and the Age of the Earth
For instance, consider the age of the earth. Personally, I do not think the age of the earth is a very important topic. I don’t think it is of much consequence. It’s certainly not central to the Christian faith. And I don’t think Scripture ever purports to communicate the duration of creation or actual age of the earth. So for me, while I already lean towards an older earth position, this “hermeneutic principle of coolness” seals the deal for me. Compared to a literal six-day creationist view, a progressive creationist view strikes me as much cooler. The idea that God spent millions or billions of years preparing his Creation for his image-bearers seems like the more glorious view to me. When I read the following, it inspires greater awe than young earth creationism does:
“Putting together our picture we have something like this: Almighty God is Creator, World-Ground, and Omnipotent Sustainer. In His mind the entire plan of creation was formed with man as the climax. Over the millions of years of geological history the earth is prepared for man's dwelling, or as it has been put by others, the cosmos was pregnant with man. The vast forests grew and decayed for his coal, that coal might appear a natural product and not an artificial insertion in Nature. The millions of sea life were born and perished for his oil. The surface of the earth was weathered for his forests and valleys. From time to time the great creative acts, de novo, took place. The complexity of animal forms increased. Finally, when every river had cut its intended course, when every mountain was in its purposed place, when every animal was on the earth according to the blueprint, then he whom all creation anticipated is made, MAN, in whom alone is the breath of God” (from page 174 of Roger Olson’s “The Mosaic of Christian Belief”).
Subjectivity
Of course, this idea has its shortcomings and caveats. On the surface, it seems subjective. What inspires glory for me might not do the same for you. Maybe you think that it would be more impressive and cool if God created everything in the span of just six short days. In an application like the age of the earth, it probably is a little subjective.
Even so, there’s room for subjectivity in Christian belief and practice. When Paul wrote to the Romans about indifferent things like eating meat or esteeming one day above all others, he concluded that all that really matters is that "each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Romans 14:5). Thus, when you’re torn between two choices on tangential matters, I think the handy hermeneutic principle of coolness can help serve as a tie-breaker even in more subjective applications.
Objectivity
But there’s still an objective component to this whole theory. It does not amount to some relativistic “follow your heart” nonsense. It doesn’t make my individual tastes, preferences, and desires the final arbiter of all biblical interpretation or Christian belief. The whole problem of humanity from the beginning has been that we don’t find the right things desirable. We don’t find the right things glorious. Rather than marveling at God’s glory, we “exchange the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man” (Romans 1:23). “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9). We need a new heart (Ezekiel 36:36), new birth (John 3:3), and renewed mind (Romans 12:2).
Because our sinful flesh hates the very notion of God, we have to let God define “cool” and reveal what exactly gives him glory. In this way, this principle is really just a specific expression of the self-authenticating principle of interpretation. We use Scripture to teach us what to love and admire, and then we let that inform how we interpret other parts of Scripture.
Coolness and Calvinism
I have found this particularly helpful when coming to terms with the doctrines of grace (i.e. the five points of Calvinism). My flesh’s sensibilities revile those five points. I’m not naturally moved to worship at the suggestion that I don’t possess any true free will or ultimate self-determinism. I’m not instinctively moved to worship when I hear that Jesus only died to save some people. My deceitful heart and darkened understanding do not know to rejoice in these characteristics of God.
But when I stop and think about it, I realize that Scripture doesn’t teach me to revile the doctrines of grace. I recognize that it’s just my sinful flesh objecting to these attributes and wills of God. It’s my own pride that clings desperately to free will. It’s my own preconceived notions of God and justice that frown at limited atonement.
Scripture itself actually teaches me to worship a sovereign God. Scripture teaches me to appreciate the completely unmerited gift of salvation. Scripture teaches me to follow a God that “makes out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use” (Romans 9:21). Scripture teaches me to exult in the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of an inscrutable God (Romans 11:33). And so, by the hermeneutic principle of coolness, I accept the five points of Calvinism because they give God more glory.
Conclusion
In the end, I think the hermeneutic principle of coolness can come in handy. In quite a few cases — at least all the essential ones — Scripture will be sufficiently clear on its own. But in the many less important instances where Scripture isn’t perfectly clear and two or more options seem plausible, I propose we stop and ask ourselves, “Which is cooler?”