Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • Just Your Interpretation

    There’s a quote that often ends discussion of Biblical interpretation. One party to the discussion will announce: “That’s just your interpretation.” Debate is supposed to stop. Everyone is supposed to realize that their view really has no advantage over anyone else’s, and just let the discussion die. One person with whom I correspond occasionally online will express his pleasure that I’m “getting it” whenever I talk about the subjective elements of Bible study, but then he becomes annoyed when I claim that particular interpretations can be excluded, or that one explanation is more probable than another.

    I’m going to deal with this idea very briefly. There are elements here that can be discussed at length, and that can be very complex. But let me suggest that if you’re reading this essay, you probably think that in some way my words have meaning. There is something I intend to communicate, and you can extract at least some of that information from what I write. You may disagree with me completely, but doubtless you think I said something however inane, stupid, or even reprehensible you might think it is.

    In Bible study, when someone suggests that a certain proposition is “just my interpretation” I will often ask them whether the verse is talking about pink elephants. My point? Simply that there is some interpretation that can be excluded. We can be quite certain that our text is not referencing pink elephants. Of course some might suggest that some passages in Revelation may just refer to pink elephants. But that is a completely different story. (For my own comments on understanding Revelation see my study guide, Revelation: A Participatory Study Guide.)

    The difficulty in dealing with the “just your interpretation” charge is that there is considerable truth in it. Often conservative Christians react very strongly to this comment (and often they should do so), but it is easy when reacting strongly to miss the truth. Any interpretation that I propose is my interpretation. Nobody else is to blame for it. Many people have given input, from my earliest teachers in religious education to people I conversed with yesterday, but they are not to blame for what I have accepted and what I have rejected. It is my interpretation. It is a mistake not to acknowledge that. The person who objects to my interpretation also has a right, in my view, to object to that interpretation, but not because it is my interpreation. He should object because there is some problem with it, that he has found some reason to hold a different opinion. That would acknowledge that there is some meaning (or meanings) intended by the author of the passage, and other meanings are unlikely or excluded. (Note that I don’t want to get into a detailed discussion of certain post-modern approaches here in any detail. Suffice it to say that I do believe that authors intend their text to mean something, and that I believe that the communication of that message to those who receive it has a significant value.)

    For many, the problem with understanding texts is that they think of understanding and communication as essentially binary: Either you understand or you don’t; you communicate or you don’t. The one who says “That’s just your interpretation” is focusing on the failures; the one who affirms an absolute and correct interpretation is focusing on the successes.

    But in real life, we don’t deal with this kind of absolute rightness or wrongness. I attempt to communicate regularly with my wife, and we are substantially successful. Sometimes, however, we are less than successful. When we encounter failure in communication, we don’t give up and decide not to bother to communicate any more. Instead, we live with partial success. The result is neither perfect, nor is it a failure.

    Readers of this essay will understand it, some better than others. If someone misunderstands a portion of it, I won’t give up and decide that publishing essays of this nature is useless; I expect that some people will misunderstand. Based on e-mails I get, especially in response to material I post on Bible translation, I suspect that some people’s misunderstanding is even intentional. Sometimes when I read my own material a few weeks later, I wonder how it was that I successfully communicated anything at all! The results are considerably less than perfect, but nonetheless they serve a purpose.

    In Bible study, the problem is made worse by the complexity of some interpretation problems. Despite the impression one gets from public debate, there is much about the Bible that a broad range of scholars can agree on. In general, the historical meaning, the meaning intended by the original author for his original audience, produces the best consensus. This does not by any means suggests that everyone agrees on everything at this level; I’m simply saying that the agreement is much broader than is often thought. When interpretation gets closer to application, what a piece of scripture means in our daily lives, the differences are much greater. Application is impacted by one’s theology which involves one’s tradition or the tradition of one’s church. Some students of scripture do not believe that there is any real applicability beyond that of any ordinary piece of literature, while others believe that scriptural commands can be almost directly applied to one’s daily life.

    The elements that go into this sort of application are much more subjective than those that go into the historical understanding. Nonetheless they are not totally obscure, and they can be examined. In fact, many heated arguments about scripture occur simply because one person doesn’t bother to check the basic assumptions of the other. When I get into a discussion, or heaven forbid, an argument, I frequently ask just how one goes about applying scripture. What do they think the process involves? Sometimes folks claim that they really aren’t interpreting; they’re just doing what the Bible says. But that is the opposite of “just your interpretation;” it suggests that someone has perfect understanding of scripture. Usually you will find in discussion that there is, in fact, a considerable amount of unacknowledged interpretation going on.

    In discussions of scriptural interpreation, there is great value in examining the process. It’s not nitpicking, wasting time, or trying to put the other person down. In fact, it can often bring understanding from otherwise heated debates.

    Remember:

    • It is your interpretation
    • Each writer and speaker means something
    • Communication doesn’t have to be perfect to be adequate
    • Examining your process of interpretation and application can result in improved understanding, even if not in agreement

    For more on my own view of interpretation see: Understanding the Participatory Study Method.

  • Your Church’s Heart

    I heard an outstanding sermon yesterday at Gonzalez United Methodist Church. I really enjoy the opportunity to report positive things from churches that I visit. This one is only about five minutes from my home.

    The key quote that I wrote down in my bulletin was this: The heart of any church is seen in its response to hurting humanity. The pastor used Mark 2:1-12, the story of the paralytic let down through the roof, to illustrate how we need to be diligent in helping others, and not to let the nay-sayers stop us. He was able to point to specific projects that had been started, and the effort that was required, including teamwork.

    If more of our churches would judge themselves in this way, rather than by doctrinal purity, what an amazing impact we could have on our communities, our nation, and the world!

    The hard part comes when we have to respond to some example of hurting humanity that we don’t like. Jesus had a few words to say about that too.

  • Not Taking the Bible Literally

    A group of people are gathered study the Bible. Various opinions are exchanged. “I wouldn’t take that literally,” someone says finally. Often, that is the moment that people move on. Not taking it literally is very often the excuse not to bother to figure out what a Bible passage has to say at all.

    Now before you decide that I’m a Biblical literalist, let me assure you that there are plenty of things in the Bible that should not be taken literally. But determining what in the Bible should be taken literally and what should not is a bit more complex than simply finding those passages that don’t make any sense, or that contradict modern science or historical knowledge, and then deciding that it’s not literal, so it’s OK. But what does “not literal” mean?

    But first, let’s consider what “literal” means. It’s not quite as simple as some think it is. “Literal” is not a synonym for “true” or accurate, though it is often treated that way. In fact, it is very difficult to define “literal” very precisely at all. We can think of a continuum starting with the most literal speech. “I am typing on the computer keyboard” is a literal statement, and also obviously true (though it won’t be by the time you read this!). On the other hand if I say “the butterflies of delirious joy are flitting through my consciousness” nobody is likely to take me literally. There is a state of mind that is described by this statement, but my consciousness is not a space, and there are no butterflies flying there. Between that we have more and less literal ways of expressing things.

    In addition to determining how literal or figurative the language is, we need to determine precisely what kind of literal or figurative language is being used. For example, Genesis 1 describes creation in seven days. It is important to know whether it is intended as a poetic description, liturgical language, or narrative history. It will mean very different things in each of these cases. Sometimes it is important to determine if a figurative passage is a parable, an allegory, a report of a vision, and whether it is poetic or not.

    Even literal passages can have different styles, and different focuses. Consider the difference between Samuel-Kings and the gospels. Both are considered historical narrative by their authors in some sense, but the presentation is somewhat different. Chronology is a key issue in Samuel and Kings, whereas theological theme, and the logical presentation of the mission of Jesus is emphasized in the structure of the gospels. If you look at the events of the life of Jesus in the four gospels you will find many chronological discrepancies, but if you change your perspective and look at it from a thematic point of view, the arrangement will make more sense. Both Samuel-Kings and the gospels are historical narrative, but the types of answers you can expect from each are different.

    The key point out of all that is simply that just because a passage is not literal doesn’t mean that it does not have meaning. Meaning can be expressed in many different ways. The problem for the interpreter is to be very careful to determine just what method of presentation the author is using. You will get the wrong message if you assume the wrong method of presentation.

    So how do you tell just how literal or figurative a passage is? Here are some pointers:

    • The key method is one we use in daily life. If the symbol won’t work or doesn’t make sense literally, it is likely to be figurative in some way.
      People hesitate to use this method with reference to the Bible, but it is usually quite applicable. Since we know through scientific study that the world did not come into existence in six literal days, we can guess that Genesis 1 is not, in fact, literally true. (But see my discussion of a change of cultural context below.)
    • Ask who the audience is, and what questions they might have wanted answered.
      It is very unlikely that the author is going to be answering questions that did not interest his audience. Much lousy Biblical interpretation results from failing to consider this issue.
    • Look first for the meaning of symbols in the cultural context of the readers.
      Since we can generally assume that the writer was trying to communicate with his readers, we can also assume that he would use symbols that they can understand. Only when known symbols have been exhausted should we look for ones that range widely away from the immediate cultural context.

      • ]

    • Expect more symbolic language in poetry.
    • Expect more symbolic language in prophetic oracles.
    • Expect almost exclusively symbolic language in reports of visions and dreams.
    • Don’t be afraid to use common sense and your knowledge of the physical world.
      Many Bible students are afraid that if they compare Biblical statements to their knowledge of the physical world, they will be denying the Bible. But your knowledge of the physical world is also a part of the context of God’s communication with you.
    • Ask others to justify their own conclusions on whether something is literal or figurative.
      Don’t allow the assumption that a passage should be taken literally unless it can be demonstrated that it is figurative. Each passage should be considered starting from a neutral position.

    I want to make one last comment about the changing context, because it applies directly to Genesis 1-11 (prehistory). It is quite possible that this passage was understood literally by those who first wrote, heard, and read it. There was no reason for them to believe that things had happened otherwise. The question for the interpreter is whether the passage is intending to provide us with the literal history. An alternate possibility, even probability, is that the elements of the story of creation were already present in the culture, and that the author of Genesis pulled these elements together into the story. For some discussion of the purpose, see my essay Genesis Creation Stories.

    Bottom line: Don’t be forced into accepting any claim that a passage should be taken literally or figuratively.
    Ask for supporting evidence.