...
Before we leave this discussion, we should point out a key conclusion we are forced to draw about the Bible as a source of truth. Far more thinking is involved in interpreting and applying the Bible than most people realize. On the one hand, the pre-modern interpreter is more known for what s/he does not think than for what s/he thinks, since this person is largely unaware of his or her assumptions. Unless the Holy Spirit is directing their thoughts, they will likely mistake their own voice for God’s.
Nevertheless, even the pre-modern ends up using a good deal of reason to fit the various parts of the Bible together. A person can believe that none of the parts of the Bible conflict with each other and still acknowledge that there are a lot of statements that at least seem to conflict with each other. Paul says, “a man is justified by faith apart from works of law” (Rom. 3:28, RSV). James says, “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (2:24, RSV). Neither Paul nor James tell us how to fit these seemingly conflicting statements together. That is to say, the Bible does not give us the answer for how faith and works go together. We have to reason out the answer ourselves or, more likely, rely on some Christian tradition for its answer.
In the previous section we discussed how to apply the verse, “Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss” to today. It is important to point out that the Bible did not give us the answer to this question. 1 Thessalonians was a letter to ancient Thessalonians—God did not tell Paul to include a footnote on how to apply the truths of the letter to a different cultural context.
The long and short of all these observations is this: the fact that the Bible is God’s word does not in any way by-pass or remove the role that reason plays in coming to truth. We would certainly hope for the Spirit to direct our reasoning, but without reason we cannot come to any conclusion on what “the Bible” as a whole says or about how to apply such a conclusion to today.
Nor can we eliminate our past or current experiences from our engagement with Scripture. Our experiences shape the questions we ask and what aspects of the biblical text stand out to us. Our experiences create a sort of common sense that leads us to see some verses as clear and others as unclear. Our denominational backgrounds and the broader culture to which we belong serve as filters as well. We should try to be as objective as we can in relation to the forces at work on us, but Gadamer is surely correct when he sees us inevitably bringing all of our hermeneutical “baggage” with us to any text.
What we see is that the Bible is a unique source of truth for the Christian, but it does not by-pass the normal use of reason and experience. Even when I have a direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, I inevitably interpret it with my human reasoning. I not only have a finite perspective on the universe, but I have that perspective stuck within my head. The person who thinks that s/he simply reads the Bible and does what it says—God said it, I believe it, that settles it—is a dangerous person. For this person is vastly unaware of the forces at work on their understanding. They are wired to regularly mistake their own thoughts for the thoughts of God.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'm just wondering...I read where Judiasm was a religion and not an ethnic identity and it got me thinking about Paul and the Jew and Gentile...If Paul was understanding things not with religious/spiritual eyes, but a proper order and structure of tribal communities...then, the law would be what he would understand to bring proper order in that society, where there had been none. None of the gnostic "salvation" understandings of Jewish messiah, but an understanding of the need for community in relationship...which is "law and order"...and is the fore-runner of our American form of government...That is the message of Romans when he "corrects the Gentile to turn around and lamblast the Jew as well, as far as "sin"...it was a breaking of proper order and structure in maintaining..society. Christ was a "figure" to take on the "blood feuds" in primitive societies. And he used cultic means to "realease" their sense of justice...upon Christ...thus "freeing the barbarian" from tribalism...A life lived in commitment to higher values than oneself...
The scriptures were written to certain people with certain situational "needs" and this is why Paul's understanding And specific letters were different from others...And that is why the diversity issue was of primal importance, because of situational needs. It would be unethical to not consider the specifics of the case. And all of it had nothing to do with religion. Paul had not meant to "found" a new religion, nor did Jesus. Paul had understood the universal and humane ethic that undercut his religious convictions. That was his revelation in Stephen.
Ken,
I have appreciated the past several posts you have made in regards to being historically accurate when interpreting what the Scriptures are saying.
Do you think that there is a conscious resistance to allowing the *human* elements of the text to be taken into consideration? My observation is that it takes a certain amount of confidence in God to dig deep into the historical settings, make connections, and assume that you will come out with a coherent understanding.
Following in the spirit of Dunn, Wright, and others who seem to have that confidence is a rare quality. I have seen many believers go half-way into these studies and then decide that it doesn't make sense and quit. Perhaps the value of the ministers in your classes is that of continuing the teachings that inspire and increase the faith of their people, not cause them to doubt...
I would much rather a person have faith than have knowledge. However, I also believe that the knowledge part surely must work out or else ultimately Christianity is unworthy of our faith. There's something suspicious about a form of faith that can't stand up to serious scrutiny. It makes you wonder how solid such a faith is--whether it will be able to endure the challenges of our day.
Agreed. There is a healthy level of preconception detox that most folks need to go through when discovering that the rock solid message they learned may be a bit more ambiguous than they are comfortable with.
That's when the catch-phrases are thrown out - "God is not a God of confusion" or "I'm only interested in making the Bible relevant."
Or, people start losing their faith...
It takes courage and grounding and, most importantly, an alternatively constructive rendering the the Gospel, to be able to find one's way and stay within the Christian faith. I guess all I want to communicate is that I sympathize with the concerns and frustrations you have expressed.
Post a Comment