Let's take a trip back in time--500 years or so.
A German monk worked diligently to translate the Bible into the German language believing each person should be able to access the Scriptures and read that which was written there; interpret what was written there; learn to think about God's Word for him/her self.
The powers that be felt that this would be a horrendous step. It would lead to multiple interpretations. It would lead to questioning of Church doctrine. It would lead to division. They were right. Right as rain.
But that German monk pressed on believing that getting the Word of God into everyone's hands was much more important. There not need be any mediator between God's Word and people. No preachers. No theologians. No scholars or professors. The Holy Spirit would lead people to understand God's Word handed to them in their plain language.
That German monk was not the only one who pressed to have the Bible written in the language of the people. Others set forth to produce the Bible in various translation. Some were killed for their actions--see Tyndale. Again, it was the powers that be which tried to prevent such actions. Only those "qualified" to interpret the Bible should go about that business. The rest of the folks should just listen to those learned "qualified" and implement what they said. Chaos would rule if everyone was allowed to get their hands on the precious Scriptures.
Well, chaos indeed did erupt. Multiple interpretations have arisen. Division has become the rule.
But I would not trade it. Not for a second. I, as Martin Luther, firmly believe the Holy Scriptures should be accessible for each and every Christian. I believe there need not be a mediator to interpret the Bible correctly for a person or for a group of people. I believe people who read the plain language of the text in whatever language those folks speak can come to understand the Gospel; understand who Jesus is; and get a sense of what how they are called to live in relationship to the God of grace. It is part and parcel of the Lutheran heritage to which I belong.
I will take the division and chaos instead of having a certain group have a monopoly on Biblical interpreation.
Why?
Sin. Pure and simple. Sin. Human self-centeredness ALWAYS impacts how we read the Bible--from the most learned scholar to those who are barely able to read. Sin creeps into our interpretive methodologies and leads us astray no matter how pure our intentions may be. The corrective to such sin is the mutual conversation and consolation of the bretheren. (Matthew chapter 18 outlines how this takes place in the Church.) It is our holding one another accountable for our interpretations which keeps us on the right track--even if we don't like hearing it from each other.
Despite this, I believe there is a growing trend in my own denomination which sets scholarship back on the pedestal it once had before the Reformation. There are those who constantly refer to what "the scholars" tell us the Bible means instead of beginning with the plain language of the text.
This is why, oftentimes, some clergy are confronted by people who say they don't "preach from the Bible." Or folks leave certain congregations and say that the church in which they now attend "preaches the Bible." It's not that one church preaches from the Bible and the other doesn't. No. That's not what is being said. What is being said is, "This church over here preaches from the plain language of the text; you, on the other hand, preach what the scholars say the text means." There is a big difference. In one methodology, a person can argue with you based upon what the Bible says. In the other methodology, a person has to read the scholars and argue about what they say instead of directly arguing about what the Bible itself says.
To appeal to the scholars takes biblical interpretation out of the hands of the lay folks. It also implies they are not qualified to interpret or engage in the interpretive process. I recently read this in blatant fashion on a blog which I follow and which was later linked (in edited fashion) to the Living Lutheran website. Mind you, I have no love lost for the preachers the author goes after. But I take great umbrage with the following statement:
Powerful enough to actually believe that Living Proof Ministries
would be an attractive name for a company that publishes “educational
material” written by someone with no scholarly training in Biblical
history or interpretation (that’s Beth Moore’s ministry outfit, in case
you were wondering).
I need the living proof that she’s qualified to write material…
Let's travel further back in time. Back to Jesus first. Mark 6:
He left that place and came to his home town, and his disciples followed him.
2On the sabbath he began to teach in the
synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, ‘Where did
this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him?
What deeds of power are being done by his hands!
3Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’ And they took offense at him.
Apparently, there were those who didn't think Jesus had the credentials to speak as He spoke. He was not a recognized scholar, scribe, or Pharisee. He didn't sit on the Sanhedrin. The powers that be didn't like what He said. It's no wonder.
Of course, after Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension, the Holy Spirit fell upon the disciples (apostles) and empowered them to preach and teach. What were their credentials? Were they "learned scholars" schooled in the ancient Hebrew and its teachings? Were they teachers of the Law?
Not a chance.
Fishermen.
Tax collectors.
Zealots.
Ordinary men and women.
These were the proclaimers of the Gospel. These were the proclaimers of the resurrection. These were those who became the earliest leaders of the Church--not because they had any sort of scholarly credentials, but because they were filled with the power of the Holy Spirit!
As I read through the Bible...
As I look through Christian history and the Reformation...
I see no place for intellectual snobbery in the Church. It's too damaging.
This is why I fully agree with the above cited author's final comments. May we all be able to say them truthfully:
Oh, and Father, forgive me, too. This reluctant Christian is often just a little too proud in his thoughts.
So scatter my ego as well.
Showing posts with label Hermeneutics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hermeneutics. Show all posts
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Interpreting the Bible Part 2
Two Modes of Interpretation
As theology responded to the “Enlightenment threat” it generally chose one of two routes:
1. The hermeneutic of inerrancy: In some ways, the name says it all. One direction theology chose was to view Scripture as completely inerrant. The Bible was seen to be complete and perfect no matter what science or reason said. This mentality was a sort of battening down the hatches approach or a “we refuse to be influenced by this science and reason stuff.”
This school of thought basically settled on five fundamentals of the Christian faith–hence became known as the movement of fundamentalism. Those fundamentals are:
• The inerrancy of the Bible
• The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
• The Virgin Birth of Christ
• The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
• The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
In my estimation, this is an intellectually untenable position based on several reasons: translation errors, the lack of original manuscripts, manuscript variances, historical reality, conflicting texts/laws/teachings/statutes in the Bible itself. However, many fundamentalists have been accused of being non-thinkers. I think this assertion is equally absurd. Many fundamentalists think and think deeply; however, I believe their thought is based upon faulty assumptions–the major one being the Bible is inerrant.
2. The hermeneutic of suspicion: This will require a little more depth to explain. This theological train of thought took the tools of reason and science and began applying them to the Christian faith. In a very real way, they accepted the authority of reason and science over theology and sought to make theology acceptable in the eyes of philosophers and scientists.
There are some valuable insights which have come from this group particularly seeking to understand the stories of the Bible as they were first understood in the historical context in which they were originally heard. Some fascinating insights have been discovered by using such a method; however, as with many things, like fundamentalism, the hermeneutic of suspicion has been pushed too far.
Perhaps the most famous scholar to appear in this vein of thought is Rudolph Bultmann. He was not the first to embrace some of the following ideas, but he has been very influential-especially in modern, liberal American Protestantism. Bultmann raised much suspicion regarding anything and everything miraculous recorded in the Bible. Such things were not compatible with reason and science, said he. (He was wrong, but we do not need to debate such matters here.) Therefore, we must take the stories about the miraculous and seek a different meaning using the story as an anecdote to portray a larger truth. Skepticism of the historical accuracy and reliability of the biblical accounts became the rule.
Of course, if the accounts of the miracles were not necessarily reliable and accurate, how could we be sure about the accuracy of Jesus’ teachings? This was another theme Bultmann picked up on–what was authentically, historically Jesus and what was not? Following in the footsteps of Albert Schweitzer, Bultmann traveled further.
Bultmann began with a very important assumption about how the Gospels were written, (please note, I am applying Bultmann’s thought only to the New Testament here.) asserting they were put together by communities of faith who were interested in conveying a particular portrait of Jesus. Much like fables and fairytales were gathered by certain communities, so were the stories of Jesus. Mark had a particular community he was trying to influence. Matthew, Luke, and John likewise. Various stories and traditions were used by differing authors to complete their picture of Jesus; some of that material was historical; some was not. The quest for the historian was to wade through that which was added and by some sort of criteria distinguish what was really Jesus and what was constructed by the communities of faith and attributed to Jesus.
In the 1990's a Third Quest for the Historical Jesus used many of these same methods to push the envelope even further. Perhaps some of you remember the Jesus Seminar? I certainly do as I was in theological training during these years, and much of this was big news.
Unfortunately, like the hermeneutic of inerrancy, the hermeneutic of suspicion suffers from some devastating problems. What criteria does one use to figure out what is real and historical versus what communities added? Much of the criteria is actually pretty subjective. Can we find corroborating evidence to verify the historicity of Jesus, much less any other particular figure from ancient history? Is it possible to construct a Jesus with as much staying power as the Jesus portrayed by the Gospels–a Jesus worthy of having a global faith based upon? Are the reconstructions presented by these Jesus scholars true pictures of Jesus or interpretations based upon these scholars’ biases? Why shouldn’t we be just as suspicious of these reconstructions as we are of the biblical accounts? These are just a few questions. There are some even more devastating ones which I believe make the hermeneutic of suspicion an intellectually untenable position. Again, as I said about fundamentalism, it’s not because people don’t think. There are some tremendous thinkers in this vein of interpretation; however, the basic assumption, I believe is wrong.
As theology responded to the “Enlightenment threat” it generally chose one of two routes:
1. The hermeneutic of inerrancy: In some ways, the name says it all. One direction theology chose was to view Scripture as completely inerrant. The Bible was seen to be complete and perfect no matter what science or reason said. This mentality was a sort of battening down the hatches approach or a “we refuse to be influenced by this science and reason stuff.”
This school of thought basically settled on five fundamentals of the Christian faith–hence became known as the movement of fundamentalism. Those fundamentals are:
• The inerrancy of the Bible
• The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
• The Virgin Birth of Christ
• The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
• The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
In my estimation, this is an intellectually untenable position based on several reasons: translation errors, the lack of original manuscripts, manuscript variances, historical reality, conflicting texts/laws/teachings/statutes in the Bible itself. However, many fundamentalists have been accused of being non-thinkers. I think this assertion is equally absurd. Many fundamentalists think and think deeply; however, I believe their thought is based upon faulty assumptions–the major one being the Bible is inerrant.
2. The hermeneutic of suspicion: This will require a little more depth to explain. This theological train of thought took the tools of reason and science and began applying them to the Christian faith. In a very real way, they accepted the authority of reason and science over theology and sought to make theology acceptable in the eyes of philosophers and scientists.
There are some valuable insights which have come from this group particularly seeking to understand the stories of the Bible as they were first understood in the historical context in which they were originally heard. Some fascinating insights have been discovered by using such a method; however, as with many things, like fundamentalism, the hermeneutic of suspicion has been pushed too far.
Perhaps the most famous scholar to appear in this vein of thought is Rudolph Bultmann. He was not the first to embrace some of the following ideas, but he has been very influential-especially in modern, liberal American Protestantism. Bultmann raised much suspicion regarding anything and everything miraculous recorded in the Bible. Such things were not compatible with reason and science, said he. (He was wrong, but we do not need to debate such matters here.) Therefore, we must take the stories about the miraculous and seek a different meaning using the story as an anecdote to portray a larger truth. Skepticism of the historical accuracy and reliability of the biblical accounts became the rule.
Of course, if the accounts of the miracles were not necessarily reliable and accurate, how could we be sure about the accuracy of Jesus’ teachings? This was another theme Bultmann picked up on–what was authentically, historically Jesus and what was not? Following in the footsteps of Albert Schweitzer, Bultmann traveled further.
Bultmann began with a very important assumption about how the Gospels were written, (please note, I am applying Bultmann’s thought only to the New Testament here.) asserting they were put together by communities of faith who were interested in conveying a particular portrait of Jesus. Much like fables and fairytales were gathered by certain communities, so were the stories of Jesus. Mark had a particular community he was trying to influence. Matthew, Luke, and John likewise. Various stories and traditions were used by differing authors to complete their picture of Jesus; some of that material was historical; some was not. The quest for the historian was to wade through that which was added and by some sort of criteria distinguish what was really Jesus and what was constructed by the communities of faith and attributed to Jesus.
In the 1990's a Third Quest for the Historical Jesus used many of these same methods to push the envelope even further. Perhaps some of you remember the Jesus Seminar? I certainly do as I was in theological training during these years, and much of this was big news.
Unfortunately, like the hermeneutic of inerrancy, the hermeneutic of suspicion suffers from some devastating problems. What criteria does one use to figure out what is real and historical versus what communities added? Much of the criteria is actually pretty subjective. Can we find corroborating evidence to verify the historicity of Jesus, much less any other particular figure from ancient history? Is it possible to construct a Jesus with as much staying power as the Jesus portrayed by the Gospels–a Jesus worthy of having a global faith based upon? Are the reconstructions presented by these Jesus scholars true pictures of Jesus or interpretations based upon these scholars’ biases? Why shouldn’t we be just as suspicious of these reconstructions as we are of the biblical accounts? These are just a few questions. There are some even more devastating ones which I believe make the hermeneutic of suspicion an intellectually untenable position. Again, as I said about fundamentalism, it’s not because people don’t think. There are some tremendous thinkers in this vein of interpretation; however, the basic assumption, I believe is wrong.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Interpreting the Bible Part 1
How does one Interpret the Bible?
Three Forms of Hermeneutics
Please don’t be frightened by the second line of the title. Hermeneutics is simply a big word for interpretation, and it is my belief that much of the confusion and division we experience between Christian denominations and believers can be traced directly to how we interpret the Bible and the underlying assumptions governing our interpretation.
A Brief Traverse of History
There has never been a time when everyone who came into contact with Jesus’ teachings agreed wholeheartedly on their interpretation. Yes, you heard that statement correctly. Someone might try to argue that the early disciples were surely in agreement and that in the early church everyone was on the same page. I would respond to such a statement with the following: How long has it been since you have read your Bible?
If you read through the book of Acts, which is Luke’s account of the beginnings of the church, you will see quite plainly, the early church was not always in harmony. There were divisions and factions arising even then. Couple the book of Acts with the letters of Paul, and you have further evidence the early church was not of one accord. Throw in a couple of the early heresies, especially Gnosticism, represented by the Gospel of Thomas, and one quickly gets the picture of a church wrestling deeply with what it fundamentally meant to follow Jesus’ teachings.
In 325, Emperor Constantine convened a great council of the church to deal with such matters. (Some folks call this the “First Great Council.” I disagree. I think the “First Great Council” was recorded in Acts 15.) The council had many successful moments including the formulation of the Nicene Creed and the beginning of some canon law. There was a sense of unity in the Church–for a time.
But scriptural interpretation still was not a settled matter, and as time progressed four main modes of interpretation emerged and were prevalent during the Middle Ages. They were:
• The literal meaning – which was the plain and evident meaning.
• The moral meaning – instructed people on how to behave.
• The allegorical meaning – this revealed the doctrinal content
• The anagogical meaning – this expressed a future hope.
Now, there is nothing necessarily wrong with these methods of interpretation–unless you have difficulty discerning which method should be primary. Why does that make a difference? Please see Worksheet 3A from Kerygma: Parables: Stories for Life in God’s World.* Can you see the issues which can arise using such allegory to formulate the basis of doctrine?
Luther rebelled against the allegorical meaning as primary, and he argued the literal or plain reading of scripture–and as he translated the Bible into German–read in the language of the people should be the primary, authoritative reading of scripture. We know some of the results of Luther’s stand–or theoretically, we should since we are Lutheran.
But this reading also posed a set of problems for language is a bit tricky. Much of the language of scripture is metaphorical. Some of it deals with visions which obviously draw heavily on analogies. The most famous one is perhaps what began the divisions among Protestants: the definition of the word “is” as it pertains to Jesus’ words regarding the Lord’s Supper: “This is my body...This is my blood...” Is the word “is” to be taken literally, metaphorically, or somehow a combination of both?
Interestingly enough, another phenomena entered the picture at almost the same time as the Reformation–the rise of reason and the modern Enlightenment movement. Up until this moment in time, theology was considered the “Queen of the Sciences.” It carried the most authority in universities. In just a century or so, it was replaced by science and philosophy–the disciplines which were based in reason. Theology had lost its status, and so it found itself in a bit of a quandary. How should it respond?
*The man who was going down is Adam. Jerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The robbers are hostile powers. The priest is the Law, the Levite is the prophets, and the Samaritan is Christ. The wounds are disobedience, the beast is the Lord's body, the pandochium (that is, the stable [inn]), which accepts all [pan-] who wish to enter, is the Church. And further, the two denarii mean the Father and the Son. The manager of the stable is the head of the Church, to whom its care has been entrusted. And the fact that the Samaritan promises he will return represents the Savior's second coming. (This is not the full text, but a portion copied from this website.)
Three Forms of Hermeneutics
Please don’t be frightened by the second line of the title. Hermeneutics is simply a big word for interpretation, and it is my belief that much of the confusion and division we experience between Christian denominations and believers can be traced directly to how we interpret the Bible and the underlying assumptions governing our interpretation.
A Brief Traverse of History
There has never been a time when everyone who came into contact with Jesus’ teachings agreed wholeheartedly on their interpretation. Yes, you heard that statement correctly. Someone might try to argue that the early disciples were surely in agreement and that in the early church everyone was on the same page. I would respond to such a statement with the following: How long has it been since you have read your Bible?
If you read through the book of Acts, which is Luke’s account of the beginnings of the church, you will see quite plainly, the early church was not always in harmony. There were divisions and factions arising even then. Couple the book of Acts with the letters of Paul, and you have further evidence the early church was not of one accord. Throw in a couple of the early heresies, especially Gnosticism, represented by the Gospel of Thomas, and one quickly gets the picture of a church wrestling deeply with what it fundamentally meant to follow Jesus’ teachings.
In 325, Emperor Constantine convened a great council of the church to deal with such matters. (Some folks call this the “First Great Council.” I disagree. I think the “First Great Council” was recorded in Acts 15.) The council had many successful moments including the formulation of the Nicene Creed and the beginning of some canon law. There was a sense of unity in the Church–for a time.
But scriptural interpretation still was not a settled matter, and as time progressed four main modes of interpretation emerged and were prevalent during the Middle Ages. They were:
• The literal meaning – which was the plain and evident meaning.
• The moral meaning – instructed people on how to behave.
• The allegorical meaning – this revealed the doctrinal content
• The anagogical meaning – this expressed a future hope.
Now, there is nothing necessarily wrong with these methods of interpretation–unless you have difficulty discerning which method should be primary. Why does that make a difference? Please see Worksheet 3A from Kerygma: Parables: Stories for Life in God’s World.* Can you see the issues which can arise using such allegory to formulate the basis of doctrine?
Luther rebelled against the allegorical meaning as primary, and he argued the literal or plain reading of scripture–and as he translated the Bible into German–read in the language of the people should be the primary, authoritative reading of scripture. We know some of the results of Luther’s stand–or theoretically, we should since we are Lutheran.
But this reading also posed a set of problems for language is a bit tricky. Much of the language of scripture is metaphorical. Some of it deals with visions which obviously draw heavily on analogies. The most famous one is perhaps what began the divisions among Protestants: the definition of the word “is” as it pertains to Jesus’ words regarding the Lord’s Supper: “This is my body...This is my blood...” Is the word “is” to be taken literally, metaphorically, or somehow a combination of both?
Interestingly enough, another phenomena entered the picture at almost the same time as the Reformation–the rise of reason and the modern Enlightenment movement. Up until this moment in time, theology was considered the “Queen of the Sciences.” It carried the most authority in universities. In just a century or so, it was replaced by science and philosophy–the disciplines which were based in reason. Theology had lost its status, and so it found itself in a bit of a quandary. How should it respond?
*The man who was going down is Adam. Jerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The robbers are hostile powers. The priest is the Law, the Levite is the prophets, and the Samaritan is Christ. The wounds are disobedience, the beast is the Lord's body, the pandochium (that is, the stable [inn]), which accepts all [pan-] who wish to enter, is the Church. And further, the two denarii mean the Father and the Son. The manager of the stable is the head of the Church, to whom its care has been entrusted. And the fact that the Samaritan promises he will return represents the Savior's second coming. (This is not the full text, but a portion copied from this website.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)