FaithQuest Revisited

Open to Interpretation

Dan R. Dick

September 9, 2009

Communication in the Church, Critical Thinking, The Bible

MACPC_FINAL I have been engaged this week in a lively, fascinating email exchange with a young male pastor out west over the interpretation of scripture. Think of the “hi, I’m a Mac/hi, I’m a PC” ads. For the sake of the illustration, I obviously am the PC… Anyway, my friend and I have been volleying some ideas about the Bible back and forth for the past few days, and I think the discussion is worth sharing. First, there are a few basic beliefs we agree upon:

The Bible matters
People should be reading and seeking to understand the Bible
Our preaching and teaching should be grounded in the Bible
The Bible shapes and defines our identity as God’s people
The Bible is not a factual book of history, but a book of faith

You would think, with these things in common, we’re pretty much on the same page. Nope. Our conversation hinges on a modern/post-modern tension — one that is so delicate that it is easy to slip from dialogue to diatribe. I’m going to share my side, and hope that if I misrepresent his side he will weigh in and correct me. I list my opinions first, his second in italics.

It is very important to understand the context and cultures of the authors of the various pieces of scripture. Knowing what was intended helps us know whether the teachings from thousands of years ago still hold up today or need interpretation and a new application. What the original authors meant and intended is an essential element of good biblical studies. What the Bible meant is not important, but what the Bible means is everything. Times and cultures are so different that it is ridiculous to try to compare modern day America to ancient Israel or first century Palestine. Most of what we think we know about those times is fiction anyway, so don’t waste time trying to figure out something that is meaningless anyway. Read scripture for what it says today.
Translation matters. It is worth going back to the original Hebrew and Greek from time to time to understand word meanings, nuance, flavor, etc. Good scholarship requires some rigorous engagement with a variety of texts and translations. The Bible isn’t a collection of documents, but a source of revelation. The version you read isn’t that important. How the Bible speaks to you and guides your thinking is what is most important. What the Bible means is a worthless question; the real question is what does the Bible mean to me?
The Bible was written in a very different cultural context, to a premodern and in many ways primitive audience. Much of what we know and are learning today has no precedent in the Bible. The Bible, as it exists, wasn’t written for us, and so it requires some serious study and interpretation to speak to us in our day. The Bible, as it exists, is exactly as it exists. It is not an artifact from time, but revelation and wisdom that transcends time. Every person who picks the Bible up is reading the Bible as it is meant to be. The reader defines the meaning of scripture for her or himself.
Biblical illiteracy is a big problem in our church and throughout our culture. We operate as much by myth, opinion, and misunderstanding as we do good, solid knowledge of what the Bible says and means. We misuse scripture to prove points, oppress whole peoples, make political statements, and justify a host of questionable acts. All faith is based on myth, opinion, and misunderstanding. Faith is never objective, but purely subjective. Each individual person is an individual faith unto her or himself. Our religion is a reflection of our values, not vice versa. What we say and do is always justified by what we believe — both individually and collectively. Not reading or understanding the Bible will not keep people from believing in God or calling themselves Christian. In fact, it is only within the past few generations that people have been educated enough to read the Bible anyway. Our history has been one of Biblical illiteracy by the masses.
There are very exacting intentions and meanings in the Bible. Concepts of grace, justice, mercy, compassion, forgiveness, etc., are not optional for people calling themselves Christian. There are some specific delineations and definitions that provide clear expectations for Christian believers. We may choose not to accept them, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there. The Bible contains multiple pictures of what it might mean to be Christian. Ultimately, we are humans, created by God in God’s likeness, and we are called to follow Jesus Christ. Each person and each church has to work out for themselves what this means and what it looks like. There is no set of standards by which we can say, “this is Christian,” and “this is not.”
Bible study is an important characteristic and practice for spiritual formation and growth. It provides a guide for discipleship and stewardship, ways to live together as the body of Christ in service to all the world. People will hold a defective and incomplete understanding of the Christian faith should they choose not to read, study, and reflect on scripture. Many roads lead to God, and the intellectual is just one path — and maybe not even a really important path. Most people know enough Bible to get by. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and “love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself,” should be all the Bible anyone would ever need. In fact, if we just mastered these two things and burned the rest, would probably live in a much better world.

This conversation isn’t over yet, and I respect a well-articulated position so foreign to my own. It is always valuable for me to engage in dialogue with someone who comes at the world in a different way. We disagree, but we don’t fight. We challenge, but we don’t attack. We prod, but we don’t bludgeon. It has been fun (and frustrating, but mostly fun…). I wonder how many younger pastors and seminarians share my friends views? I wonder how many share mine? I wonder if there is any way to judge which perspective offers the most promise, and which the greatest peril? Obviously, we would disagree on this as well!

Rate this:

22 responses to “Open to Interpretation”

Jay Miklovic

September 10, 2009

Larry-
You are so spot on in your assessment. I will speak for myself and others as a young Laity (28) within the UMC and say that most committed Christians in our age demographic are not in the UMC not because of the UMC’s lack of openness, but instead because of our growing lack of absolutes, and lack of anything to stand upon.
I would say the positions of this young pastor reduce our Saviour to a mere ‘concept’ or idea, and that ultimately according to this young man Christ is subject to our ideas and understandings effectively denying His Lordship at all.

Jay

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  September 10, 2009
  
  Jay, Larry, and others, I am very glad to have you point out that this is less generational than theological. My friend often employs the “royal we,” reminding me that “we” (meaning younger people) are not as tied to tradition and “we” (meaning post-moderns) read literature and view art differently, and that “we” (meaning emergent movement pastors) are less hung up on history and are more open and transparent. He speaks personal preference and approach as representative of different groups of people. This is more a personality trait than a sign of youth.
  
  Reply
Larry

September 10, 2009

As a young UMC elder (about to turn 33 next week) – at least I assume this qualifies as “young” as you mean the word – I most definitely accept the approach you take, and would disagree strongly with my demographic “peer.” In fact, most young clergy that I know – can’t speak for young laity very well – would also reject this pastor’s POV.

If this is a UM pastor, I will say that this totally reinforces my personal stereotype of the Western Jurisdiction being off the deep-end liberal; I mean how much more theologically liberal can you get than to basically affirm that the Bible isn’t necessarily all that important to believers – don’t waste time studying it, all you need to know is love your neighbors and love God, etc. Yet he affirmed we are created in God’s image – that is directly a Biblical teaching, and I would argue an important one, so I would agree that he is not being totally consistent.

Reply
Katie Z.

September 10, 2009

just to weigh in – this is not the only post-modern interpretation of scripture. I myself would hold more of a scripture read in community/conference understanding so that the Spirit can speak through any/all of us. I also hold that there is immense value in the traditions and practices of our mothers and fathers and that without knowing our history we are doomed to repeat it… BUT that our future does not necessarily look like our past.

I’m actually at an emergent village event right now and heard J. Franke talk last night about plurality of truth – but in many ways he was just pointing out the fact that throughout our Christian History, we have never agreed on everything. We don’t agree about baptism and communion, we don’t agree on God’s sovereignty or who grace is extended to, etc…. But – that doesn’t mean we stop talking.

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  September 10, 2009
  
  Thanks, Katie, it is not my intention to label types of interpretation, and there are a whole lot of different approaches besides mine and my friends. Post-modern gets slapped on just about anything that is progressive, critical, or non-traditional — which ends up making the term absolutely meaningless and lumping most liberal modernistic thinking in as “post-modern.” It’s a beautiful, tangled mess that allows for an amazing diversity of opinions and approaches. Thanks for the reality check.
  
  Reply
vacircuitrider

September 10, 2009

I also notice his suggestion that we have burn everything but “do unto others…” and “love the Lord your God” leaves no mention of Christ, the crucifixion, atonement for sins, forgiveness, grace, justification, etc. etc. etc. Which neglects Jesus’ first act of public ministry–the call to repentance. One cannot love God until one first knows God; one cannot know God until one has responded to God’s grace and been justified.

In other words, his way leaves no room for salvation.

Reply
Cindy

September 10, 2009

I have to confess that I’m not sure what the problem is. I agree with the other guy. Dead words from a dead book written by people dead over 2,000 years isn’t really worth wasting much time on. There is nothing in the Bible that we shouldn’t know by heart by now. Love other people, don’t hate, don’t hurt, be kind, forgive — these things are not rocket science and if we haven’t learned them by now Bible study certainly isn’t going to help. The Bible causes more problems than it solves. The church I go to doesn’t have any Bibles and what scripture is used is projected on the screens or printed on our handouts. Our church is packed, and I don’t think anyone there misses the Bible much at all. We still talk about faith, but we talk about living it, not just reading about it. Christianity is bigger than a book. If all the Bibles disappeared tonight, the church would get along just fine without it.

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  September 10, 2009
  
  I hear what you’re saying, but I personally disagree. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I wonder how long it would be before Christianity was unrecognizable? Though we have not always handled it well, the Bible has served as a touchstone through the centuries to give some shape and form to our faith. We derive an orthodoxy (and I admit that this is often as much a problem as a solution) from scripture that I am afraid would dissolve in the absence of a common story and biblical base. I could be wrong. We haven’t done such a good job with such a book, so maybe not much would change without it. I think there is a lot more value to the Bible than just mining out a few favorite passages. I believe we have yet a lot to learn thorugh study, relflection, and discussion of the Good Book.
  
  Reply
John Meunier

September 10, 2009

I do not understand how your friend holds the position you outline in No. 6 and yet still affirms the things you put at the top of your list as the things you both agree upon.

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  September 10, 2009
  
  My friend does acknowledge that the Bible is a path, and that it works for some in significant ways. He holds that there is a lot of good stuff in the Bible, but that too much effort and energy is spent making it harder than it needs to be. He personally likes the Bible, but has no patience for the rigors of historical-critical study. Open interpretation without the constraints of scholarship has as much validity — maybe even moreso — than deep, intensive, academic exegesis. I have some difficulties with the consistency of his argument, but I am confident in saying he feels the same way about mine!
  
  Reply
vacircuitrider

September 10, 2009

nothing like bringing the Bible–meant to be read, taught, studied, and lived out in community–to the level of “I/me.”

Sounds like this guy has a individualistic viewpoint of Christianity.

There is no “me” in Jesus; but there is a “us.”

Reply
1. doroteos2
  
  September 10, 2009
  
  Well, I am right there with you, but I think there is a strong individualistic, consumeristic, and privatistic (if this is a word) worldview at work in our culture and world. It often gets lumped in with the “post-modern” worldview, but there have been narcissistic approaches long before post-modernism came along. And there are as many ego-centric Christians who are died-in-wool modernists, but the prevalence of the “me-and-my-buddy-Jesus” mindset today is a little scary.
  
  My friend does have a communal aspect to his faith and his interpretation of scripture that I may have under-represented, but he is very adamant that each person must come to scripture and relate to scripture individually, and not just accept the majority opinion about what it says and means.
  
  Reply