and god said, "it is good."

so the bible no longer shocks or surprises us. in the evangelical church we will never be exposed to a marxist reading of mark's gospel, a feminist reading of the account of david and bathsheba, a social justice reading of revelation, the (obvious?) conflict between matthew and john (with regard to church leadership and the relevance of the law to name but two issues). this is not to say that these readings are any more 'right', simply that the evangelical hermeneutic is willfully ignorant of the insights  of scholarship which can sometimes serve to enlighten, shock and inspire us, bringing us closer to the god of scripture.

i also take on board neal's comment on my previous post. as kierkegaard says we ('we' not 'they') all too often hide behind our safe interpretations to race from the glaring implications of the text in front of us. this post is slightly longer than many on the site, but please try to stick with it. there's something in here that needs to be heard i think. please comment, discuss, debate, disect, disagree and denounce at will.

it seems to me that holding the bible as inerrant in this way pushes christians into an unnecessarily restrictive and increasingly redundant position in society. the argument that scripture must be inerrant since god himself gave it to us, is clearly belied by reading the bible itself. take, for example, paul’s subtle argument on the torah in romans, where he argues against exactly this point of view. his jewish opponents maintained that the law must be perfectly adequate for salvation, as god, who is perfect, was the one who gave it. allow me to intertextualise romans 7 with this theme as follows:

⁷ what then should we say? that the bible is wrong? by no means! yet, if it had not been for the bible, i would not have had wrongful interpretation in the first place. i would not have known what it is to twist the words of god had the text not said, "this is the word of the lord." ⁸ but wrongful interpretaation, seizing an opportunity in the text, produced in me all kinds of twisted interpretations. apart from the text, misinterpretation lies dead. ⁹ i was once alive apart from the bible, but when the text came, interpretation revived ¹⁰ and i died, and the very text that promised life proved to be death to me. ¹¹ for wrongful interpretation, seizing an opportunity in the text, deceived me and through it killed me. ¹² so the bible is holy, and the text is holy and just and good. ¹³did what is good, then, bring death to me? by no means! it was hermeneutics, working death in me through what is good, in order that wrongful interpretations might be shown to be wrong, and through further hermeneutics of the text might be shown to be completely in error.

¹⁴ for we know that the bible is spiritual; but i am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin.¹⁵ i do not understand my own actions. for i do not do what i want, but i do the very thing i hate. ¹⁶ now if i do what i do not want, i agree that the bible is good – i need my error pointed out to me. ¹⁷ but in fact it is no longer i that do it, i am a prisoner of the fallen culture in which i read and interpret. ¹⁸ for i know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. i can will the right interpretation, but i cannot see it, or articulate it. ¹⁹ for i do not interpret perfectly as i want, but the twisted interpretation i do not want is what i give. ²⁰ now if i do what i do not want, the only explanation is that an outside agency is at work, over which i am powerless – my own sinful nature and the sinful culture in which i interpret. ²¹ so i find it to be a law that when i want to interpret perfectly, evil lies close at hand. ²² for i delight in the bible in my inmost self, ²³ but i see another law (of hermeneutics) at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the need to interpret that dwells in my members. ²⁴ wretched man that i am! who will rescue me from this body of death? ²⁵ thanks be to god through jesus christ our lord!

so then, with my mind i am a slave to the text of the bible, but with my flesh i am a slave to the law of hermeneutics.

the perhaps-already-too-strained analogy hopelessly breaks down at this point. paul goes on in chapter 8 of romans to point out that, as it was the flesh part of the first covenant which was irrevocably broken, god himself stepped down and became flesh, so that he, in effect, kept both sides of the bargain – totally fulfilling (and therefore, for paul, eradicating) the law.[1]

i say the analogy is impossible at this point, but perhaps paul’s own metaphor cannot be pushed too far either, and thus there is still some ‘wiggle-room’ left for us to exploit. paul, in effect, argues that sin has been effectually dealt with, through the life and death of christ, so therefore, the true believer (those “in the spirit”) will presumably not struggle with sin any longer, as this struggle is only for those “in the flesh”. there is much debate as to exactly who paul is describing in romans 7 – whether his present struggle with sin, or the struggle of the person before encountering christ. (i definitely favour the latter option, as only then can i make any sense of chapter 8 or indeed the whole flow of his thought from chapter 5.) this, however, leaves paul, and us, with a lingering difficulty. chapter 8 could then be read to imply that, since christ has defeated the power of sin and the spirit has come, the christian’s struggle is over. and for us, in our metaphor, the text of scripture can be infallibly interpreted through the indwelling spirit. however, this is surely to miss paul’s (and certainly our) point.

paul is not naively claiming that christians do not sin or struggle with sin; rather, he is saying that when christians sin they are slipping back into old ingrained habits, which no longer have to control them. so, christian, take control of your passions in the name of christ and follow the ways of the spirit instead. it is a thought that culminates in paul’s urging in chapter 12 for the roman christians “to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to god, which is your spiritual worship.”[2]

stuck firmly within the paradox of the phrase “living sacrifice” is the solution to our hermeneutical conundrum. paul is referring to the ‘now’ and the ‘not yet’ of salvation. you have died to sin in christ, so, therefore continue to put to death the deeds of the flesh. so, for us, the spirit himself gives the revelation and continually interprets it to us. god the spirit shows us the meaning of the revelation of god, which is god himself. “[t]he spirit appropriates the biblical text in order to address the christian community through the ages.”^[3]

since god himself is infinite this revelation continues age after age to each new generation without ever exhausting the text. as stan grenz reminds us: “we must never conclude that exegesis can exhaust the spirit’s speaking to us through the text.”^[4]

incidentally, it is also the spirit who interprets our stumbling attempts at communication with the divine into a form god himself understands.[5] he is the mediator and enabler of all communication between the ineffable god and form-bound humanity. thus, i agree with david bloesch[6] and others that, while the historical or literary meaning of the scriptural text may well be open to everyone, it is ultimately uninteresting and unimportant when compared to the ‘true’, ‘spiritual’, or “pneumatic”[7] meaning which is only distinguishable to people “in experiential contact with the realities to which the text witnesses.”^[8] what i would not wish to prescribe, though, is just who is, or is not, “in experiential contact.”^viii all that i am stating here, is that true revelation, wherever and whenever it happens, is always mediated by the spirit – there is no revelation outside of the spirit. so when a proclaimed atheist shares a profound insight she has had regarding the biblical text, if that insight is ‘true’, it has been given her by the spirit. this is no more than a logical deduction from the aphorism “all truth is god’s truth.”

two caveats must be added, however. firstly, it is important to note that humility is needed on both the secular and the theological side when discussing ‘truth’. the fear from the reformed camp is that christian theology is thus put at the whim of the latest scientific discovery, thus robbing scripture of its ultimate authority, enthroning human knowledge instead. however, it is perfectly possible to hold tightly to the idea that scripture is true, while simultaneously acknowledging that our grasp of that truth is tenuous, fallible and in need of constant revision. on the other side, the idea that christians should remain ignorant of the times in which they live, is short-sighted at best, and dangerous at worst. the number of christians who believe they have nothing to learn from the world around them is staggering and is surely one reason, “the name of god is blasphemed among the gentiles because of [us].”[9]

it used to be thought that the bible actually taught that the earth is the centre of the universe, it is flat and everything revolves round it. now that we know this is not the case, the church was forced into a not-so-hasty retreat. in the 19^th century the catholic church enshrined in cannon law, the doctrine that human life begins at conception. now as the age of human cloning fast approaches (where embryos are created without conception occurring at all) another u-turn is surely in the offing. we must be careful which dogmatic statements we attribute to scripture.

the second caveat is to suggest that perhaps there is a form of knowledge that is indeed god’s but is not good for us to possess. a common criticism of christianity (and indeed, religion in general) is that it is directly opposed to the acquisition of knowledge. under this principle, knowledge is inherently a good thing and should be pursued. christians are always objecting to the latest scientific theory on the grounds that it is immoral: anaesthesia, organ transplants, ivf, cloning, face transplants … the list goes on. the church always seems to stand in opposition to progress, only years later being forced to recant embarrassingly and fall into line. and yet, we must state that knowledge, while certainly not immoral is amoral, not universally good. for example, it is not good for us to know how loudly a child screams when it is being tortured. neither do the ends necessarily justify the means. much of our modern knowledge of dentistry comes from the experiments performed in nazi death camps. this does not justify the holocaust. when knowledge is god, morality is thrown to the side.

so when should the church hold fast and strong to her doctrines and when should she move with the times? i think this is ultimately an imponderable and one to which we will return when we examine ethics. what is certain is that both ‘sides’ need each other’s perspective. the church cannot be effective in her god-given mission unless she remains in the front line of new technologies and philosophies. she should be the one sounding notes of caution at times – especially being a voice for the voiceless victims of progress. however, her voice, if it is to be heeded at all, must also herald and welcome the future – rather than simply being a prophecy of doom. she should laud the achievements of humanity more loudly than anyone else – celebrating the imago dei that makes us co-creators with the infinite god.

so for us, it is not that the perfect hermeneutic is even possible this side of the eschaton.[10] rather, the spirit is the mediator always of god’s revelation in christ, through the bible. we must be aware, however, that revelation immediately implies interpretation (firstly into one culturally-bound and time-specific language, then translation into different languages, then into our own time and culture by exposition and preaching). the text may well be described as infallible (or even inerrant) but it seems to me that this sort of language does little or nothing to further discussion as we still have to struggle with the hermeneutical dilemma. this is where the pure word of god cannot help but be “weakened by the flesh.”[11]

“who will rescue me from this body of death? thanks be to god through jesus christ our lord!”[12]

this is the fallible method that the infallible god has chosen to make himself known. he has always used human mediators who are born into sin and frequently get it wrong. yet we trust that still, somehow, he knows what he is doing and that through the holy spirit the way is open for mutual exchange and relationship. as dhavamony puts it,

“pneumatology is the principle of an ecclesiology of a communion which assumes local cultures and initiatives into a unity, not of mere uniformity but of a coherent harmony.”^[13]

christian theology, by tying itself so tightly with the modernist cause, now appears awkward and tongue-tied in these post-foundationalist times. the postmodern critique must be welcomed and examined for inklings, whispers of truth. george aichele may slightly overstate the case, but his comments are still close to the truth (too close for some people’s comfort perhaps),

“biblical scholars have been slow to awaken from the dream in which positivist science occupies a space apart from interests and values, to awaken to the realisation that our representations of and discourse about what the text meant and how it means are inseparable from what we want it to mean, from how we will it to mean.”[14]

also, rather than elevating the role of scripture within the church, theology has too often served to silence it in actuality. the texts are pored over for their “meaning” – the meaning behind the text itself: [15]

“why should the sincere believer continue to read the bible when biblical truth – correct doctrine – is more readily at hand in the latest systematic compilation offered by the skilled theologian... despite the well-meaning, lofty intentions of conservative thinkers to honour the bible as scripture, their approach in effect contributed to the silencing of the text in the church.”[16]

but “doctrines are not the “meaning” of the biblical stories.”[17] as rollins says, the stories are not the “raw material”[18] from which we build our theology – they themselves are the theology. they should not be harmonised and harvested for their content or essence. such an action cannot be done without perpetrating extreme violence on the text itself.[19] in this way reading scripture is always before us (to borrow from derrida), never something we have accomplished. bible study becomes an adventure, a voyage, a journey, rather than a dissection (necessarily impling a death) and a cataloguing (with its accompanying echoes of an interment in the catacombs). scripture is truly “living and active,” wriggling out from under neat theologies and systems. scripture unsettles us and is most effective when it comes at us as our adversary, as luther was fond of saying – something with which struggle and wrestle and which often defeats us.

“reading a passage is not to reduce it to, or to replace it with, themes, character portrayals, history, some ‘deep structure’, or such. reading is to follow the text, to trace its workings, even if it turns out that it is undecidable.”^[20]

theology is a “secondary language that reflects on the meaning of the primary story” ^[21] not “a rational, doctrinal system that encourages people pretty well to dispense with the story.”[22] doctrines are not the end point, “rather, they are tools … meant to help us tell the story better.”[23] we must endlessly grapple with scripture, rather than systematise and tame it. the text is always problematic. rather than the cracks and discrepancies being the specks of sandstone in hodge’s parthenon, they may actually be specks of gold, which our neat theologies too often miss. these are “struggle-ridden texts.”^[24] clines remarks perceptively:

“without probing very far beneath the surface of the text of the pentateuch, we soon form the impression that the text says quite different things at different moments, that there is at the very least a tension in the text and at the most there is irreconcilable conflict.”^[25]

evangelicals have tended to run from these observations, to the safety of their systematic theologies. they attribute such insights to malevolent ‘liberals’ whose goal is the destruction of all things sacred and holy. but in reacting this way they relegate the scripture they purport to love so much to a subordinate and safe place and substitute an unworthy idol in the place of the great god of the bible.

“we study the easter stories as if they purported to tell of events as straightforward as the sowing of a field of corn; and we assess them for a straightforward truth or falsehood. but their authors, it may be, were less naive than we are. they may have been addressing a need we no longer imagine we have: the need for the readers, due to be confronted with anything so strange as the resurrection, to be brought to a special understanding equipped to understand it.”[26]

the “spirit of wisdom and revelation”[27] cannot be dispensed with when gazing into the mysteries spoken of in the scriptures. though “we read with the intent of seeing the patterns of convergence in scripture,”^[28] we must realise that the bible is not written as a careful systematic theology, but in “the slippery language of story”, to use ben okri’s evocative phrase. “the imagery does not seem to be intended as mere decoration, best stripped away to get to the real, hard-nosed business buried beneath.”^[29] rather, the bible is filled with beautiful metaphor, parable, analogy, narrative and poetry. of course, there are many parts that are propositional in nature – it is just that we are notoriously bad judges of where those parts are!

we do not deal well with this “fuzzy, slippery, impossible to pin down”^[30] metaphoric language. like nietzsche said, we want (need?) to systematise and categorise. it may even be one of the basic features of our humanity, that we interpret the world around us.[31] however, we must recognise this tendency, not as an unqualified strength, but as a potential weakness, and resist in the name of preserving the holiness, the otherness of the lord god we wish to serve. as brueggemann poetically comments in his work on the psalms:

“metaphors are not packaged announcements; they are receptive vehicles waiting for a whole world of experience that is waiting to come to expression… they are not aisles down which we must move; they are more like rockets that explode in ways we cannot predict, causing some things to become unglued and creating new configurations of sensitivity. if we are attentive, the metaphors, like other rockets, may both shatter and illuminate.”^[32]

all metaphors are an attempt to make analogous two things, which, at their heart, are different. any metaphor, when pushed too far ceases to illuminate and actually confuses. in theological terms, all language used of god is inherently metaphorical as god, by (non)definition is beyond utterance or comparison. when we say god is a warrior, is he bloodthirsty? when we call him our lover, or bridegroom, do we imply a sexual relationship between him and us? when we call him our father, who then is the mother, and when and how was the son begotten? there is always some slippage when we speak, especially of god. rather than be daunted by this, the evangelical church ought to be thrilled and excited as the delight of discovery and learning will not stop this side of eternity.

---

[1] Cf. Romans 8:3-4

[2] Romans 12:1

[3] Grenz, Stanley and Franke, John R. (2001) Beyond Foundationalism – Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context . Kentucky. Westminster John Knox Press pg. 24

[4] ibid. P74.

[5] cf Romans 8:26-27

[6] Bloesch, D. G. (1994). Holy Scripture; Revelation, Inspiration & Interpretation. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press

[7] Ibid pg. 190

[8] Ibid

[9] Romans 2:24

[10] cf. Green, Garrett (1989) Imagining God: Theology and the Religious Imagination. San Francisco: Harper and Row pg. 186

[11] Romans 8:3

[12] Romans 7:24-25

[13] Dhavamony, Mariasusai (1995) “The Christian Theology of Inculturation” in Studia Missionalia 44 pg. 1-43

[14] Aichele, George et al., (1995) The Postmodern Bible. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press pg. 14

[15] see Grenz, Stanley and Franke, John R. (2001) Beyond Foundationalism – Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context. Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. Pg.61

[16] ibid Pg.63

[17] ibid pg. 17

[18] Rollins, Peter (2006) How (Not) to Speak of God. London: SPCK pg 17

[19] see ibid pg 13

[20] Miscall, Peter D (1983) The Workings Of Old Testament Narrative . Fortress Press, p2

[21] Pinnock, Clark (1990) Tracking the Maze: Finding Our Way Through Modern Theology From and Evangelical Perspective. San Francisco: Harper and Row pg. 182

[22] ibid

[23] Hauerwas, Stanley (1983) The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press pg. 26

[24] Mosala, quoted in Pleins, J David (2001) The Social Visions Of The Hebrew Bible: A Theological Introduction. Westminster: John Knox Press, p28

[25] Clines, David J A (1995) Interested Parties: The Ideology Of Writers And Readers Of The Hebrew Bible. Sheffield Academic Press, p192

[26]Griffith-Jones, Robin, “After the Resurrection” The Times Literary Supplement for April 14, 2006 see http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25349-2129555,00.html accessed on 31/5/06

[27] Ephesians 1:17

[28] Grenz, Stanley and Franke, John R. (2001) Beyond Foundationalism – Shaping Theology in a Postmodern Context. Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press pg. 89

[29] Smith, (2002) “Incarnation, Education And The Boundaries Of Metaphor”, in Journal Of Christian Education Vol 45, p7

[30] ibid p8

[31] see Heidegger, Martin (1962) (trans. Macquarrie, John and Robinson, Edward) Being and Time. New York: Harper and Rowe ¶ 41

[32] Brueggemann, Walter (1993) Praying The Psalms. Saint Mary’s Press p30

Comments

[Sarah D.]

I stand and WONDER - become overwhelmed
I sit and PONDER - sitting is still too much
I lay prostrate and SURRENDER

It is both exciting and unsettling to be reminded that God and faith are far more complex and fascinating than I allow my self to imagine on a regular basis.

Thanks SHANE :)

[Wendy]

Shane, I had a personal but lenghty response but scrapped it...I do embrace what you are saying...but there seems to be such a divide building between christians and what we choose to believe....

Is everything open to interpretation within the Bible and if not why not?