No Meaning without Interpretation

You know, that title is so much worse than the one I’m going to link to — The Bible doesn’t say.  That makes the point.

I frequently say that one can only call something “Biblical” when speaking from within a particular interpretive framework, which completely ruins the whole “Biblical” thing.  In my experience the use of “the Bible says” is generally manipulative.  It’s intended by the speaker to prevent you from objecting, because while you might argue with him or her, you won’t argue with the Bible, which inevitably means arguing with God.

Doug says in the referenced post:

There are two essential things that are meant by “the Bible says”. The first is, “I have read in my Bible the words X.” The second is, “My (or my tradition’s) theological interpretation of the overall tenor and thrust of the Bible is Y”. What happens quite often is that the two are combined, so that X is a shorthand statement for Y, and it seems to me that this then disguises the fact that Y is what is really happening.

Now please go read the whole article.  I’m quoting this paragraph because I want to comment on one line.  It is this second line which is so often manipulative as I hear it used in church congregations.  The person speaking is generally reflecting a theological interpretation from within a tradition, but either doesn’t want to acknowledge it, doesn’t even recognize it in the first place, or adds the proviso “and my tradition is the only one that has it right!”

That’s the problem on the flip side of the sola scriptura claim as often used in American protestantism.  It doesn’t just express a desire to go to the source, it expresses to others the notion that one has gone to the source.  Who dares to question?