In my last substantive entry, I wrote about how crowded my own life and mind are. The crowded mind I have makes it harder to grasp the implications of the Bible. In this entry I’m going to give a few examples of how our culture obscures the meaning of the Bible.
The first observation is pretty self evident, so I’ll use a silly example. In Luke 13, Jesus is told that Herod wants him dead. In his response, Jesus tells the Pharisees to “go tell that fox (Herod)….” I’m pretty sure that by calling Herod a “fox” that Jesus wasn’t expressing that Herod is a really fine looking woman. This is a silly example of how our own culture and slang use of language collide with what has to be a an ancient example of slang. The end result is that without further study, it’s hard to really understand what Jesus meant by calling Herod a “fox”. Over 2,000 years, things have changed. It is important that we read the Bible the best we can to attempt to bridge a gap of two millenia. We are kidding ourselves if we don’t recognize that our culture gives us an immediate bias in reading the Bible. Only through study and several attempts at reading are we going to be able to deal with our own modern bias.
The second example I’ll give is in Matthew 16:18-19. In those two verses, Jesus says “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church”. This provides an excellent example of how religious bias influences our reading of the Scripture. If the reader comes from a Roman Catholic background, the only reasonable interpretation to these two verses is that Peter was the first pope. If the reader comes from the typical Southern Baptist church, Peter as pope is preposterous. Instead, the ”right” interpretation is that the church is built on Peter’s words that Jesus is “Son of the Living God”. I’ll never forget sitting in a Sunday School class on the day that these two interpretations were interchangably discussed for over a half hour with no clear consensus on what the “right” reading. I offer this example not to lobby for one reading over the other, but to illustrate that our culture, language and religion all impact the way we read and understand the Bible. It is probably a mistake on our part to read the Bible without at least recognizing what we are bringing to the printed page when we sit down to read.
For example, if we sit down knowing before we ever read that Jesus NEVER intended people to think of Peter as the first pope, then what else do we know for certain before we ever try to understand the message of the Bible? This example forces me to take stock of the things I already believe I know before I ever open the Bible. Perhaps the things I already have settled in my mind as fact is closing me off from something God wants me to see?
One last example that comes closer to home. When I was a teenager I remember being told that if I obeyed God, I would enjoy God’s protection over my life, like standing under an umbrella. However, how does this philosophical concept of a divine umbrella measure up against the entire story of Job? Job did everything right and still suffered horribly. In fact, the first chapters of Job seems to tell the reader that Job was picked out to suffer because he was so virtuous and faithful. The reader of Job is outraged on his behalf when Job’s religious friends come to him and speak to him out of their settled religious philosophy. Job must be suffering because of his own sin, because everyone knows that sin brings judgment from God.
Today’s entry reminds me of one of the great perils I face when I open the Bible. Too often, I think I know what the Bible means before I read the first word.
Take care and thanks for reading.
February 20, 2007 at 10:05 am
This is, indeed, our struggle. I faced this same issue Sunday preaching from Matthew 24:1-14 where the disciples ask, “what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age.” Our minds default to the Second Coming. Yet, at that point those disciples would not have in any way conceived of a second coming. That wasn’t what they were asking about at all.
Of course, the question then becomes, is an untainted reading possible? If so, how? If not, what are the implications?
February 20, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Paul,
Precisely. In writing these entries, I am developing a brand new appreciation for how difficult it is to be a good preacher, much less a great one. I’m also understanding better why even good preachers are so rare. It is difficult work to try and contend with my own bias towards the scripture and then convey it in a meaningful way to the bias of the listener.
I can’t believe I’m about to say this, as I don’t believe in relativism when it comes to the Bible. But maybe, all readings are going to be muddier than anyone would like. I hope that it will just be muddy around the edges and clearer on essential matters matters of faith. (For example, I totally believe in the concept of the trinity, but I’m really at a loss to how to explain it in a really clear way).
I think part of what we should do is to emphasize repetition. I grew up being told to read my Bible every day. I was never really told why though. Maybe by taking repeated passes at the Bible, without insisting that I’m just seeing what I already know, then maybe I can get a better sense of what the text means over time? I don’t think I’ll ever be able to put aside my ego, culture, etc completely, but I do think I can direct my effort to becoming more like Jesus. I suspect that the Lord uses the Bible as something like water wearing away stone over time.
Practically speaking, the biggest implication I see is that while the scripture itself is flawless and without error, our method of explicating/interpreting is quite flawed. For example, the flawless Bible doesn’t seem to have cleared anything up on the debates about women, wine and tongues that have consumed SO much bandwidth in the baptist blogosphere lately. The method that people are using to read the Bible seems to be very similar, but their conclusions are nearly bringing people to blows. I really hope I’m not off base with what I’m seeing. The implications of flawed explication are terrifying.
I love your work. I’d be very interested in your thoughts on the matter.
I hope to give a related issue a fuller treatment in an entry later this week. I’m so flattered that you read, thank you.
February 21, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Big Man,
Don’t be flattered that I read. I’m nobody, really. And if your stuff wasn’t so good I wouldn’t read.
I’m sure you are aware that what you’re talking about here is at the center of current philosophical thought (of course, philosophy has been centered on language for about 100 years now). I think you would like N.T. Wright’s The New Testament And The People Of God. Part II covers what you’re talking about in some detail, particularly chapter 2.
Scottish Common Sense Realism said that there are some things that are simply and obviously self-evident (truth) and that everyone can know it. Extreme skepticism, like that of David Hume, said that you can’t know anything and some postmodern thinking is simply taking up where Hume left off – we can’t even talk (read) anything apart from our own biases; and we often use our reading/talking as a way of maintaining power over others. Wright comes down in the middle. He calls his view “Critical Realism.” There are, he says, things that we can know; but at the same time we must take the postmodern critique seriously. You mention some good examples in Southern Baptist life. Just take the heat that’s been generated over the alcohol issue and what is going on in the Florida Convention right now and it is evident that language is being used for power and control. Foucault would point to that as evidence that what he’s saying is right.
Wright would say that when we approach an issue like that we must admit our biases as we read the text and be open to some evidence or understanding that may very well impact our current understanding. It requires a hermeneutic of humility and, as Wright calls it, a hermeneutic of love – meaning that I do not feel compelled to force my interpretation on others but that in love I recognize their value before God and in love for them give them the right to disagree, and maybe even be right.
I wish we would teach that in our seminary hermeneutics classes.
Anyway, keep up the good work!
April 2, 2007 at 6:56 am
Good reflection on a challenging passage. Thank you.