Thursday, May 28, 2009

A Critical Interpretation of the Bible Shapes Meaningful Theology

Regardless of which Christian tradition we call our own, the sacred texts of the Bible are always central to that tradition. While we may affirm different canons of scripture, all families within the Christian faith have great reverence for the scriptures and view them as having a vital place of authority in shaping Christian belief and practice.

Yet, we must realize that the texts of scripture never stand on their own. The Bible does not interpret itself, but must be interpreted by those who read the text; those situated in various times and places who seek to grasp what these texts say about God.

There are many reasons people may read the Bible, e.g., historical or literary, but the ultimate and constant reason for reading the Bible is theological. Most who read the text, or hear the text read, believe it to have something to say about God and God’s engagement with humanity.

Indeed, the Bible exists, both in its parts and in its whole, not primarily for historical or literary purposes, but because both the parts and the whole of the Bible offer the historically situated authors’ views on God and how God relates to humanity. In other words, the authors of the different books of the Bible present primarily a theological perspective of life from their own world.

But the very existence of the Christian sacred texts from any and every tradition indicates that the stories of the Bible are not just about the events, characters, and times of their own era. These stories extend beyond their own frame of reference to communicate an eschatological belief in God’s good future in which each generation can find hope in the midst of the challenges of human existence.

So, if the primary purpose for writing the books of the Bible and for reading these books is theological, then how should we read these ancient texts that were written by historically situated humans who would not have envisioned the world in which we live? Do we take what they say about God at face value, or should we be open to fresh understandings of God? Answering these questions fully would take more space than allotted here, but I want to offer at least a rudimentary approach to reading the scriptures theologically.

One important step to reading the Bible theologically is to embrace a critical approach to biblical interpretation. Fundamentalist Christians and some conservative believers refuse the findings and methods of modern biblical scholarship, believing them to be human created methods of refuting what the Bible says. But a critical approach to reading scripture is not only appropriate, it is also necessary when one is seeking to develop relevant theological thinking.

A critical approach involves several components that contribute to viable and meaningful interpretations. Reading the Bible critically means giving close attention to the historically conditioned nature of the biblical texts and the authors who penned them. These authors, and the texts they produced, reflect a different worldview than ours. They viewed the cosmos differently, history differently, and the experience of the divine differently. Thus, any faithful readings, and the theology that develops from those readings, must take into account the assumptions these authors had that we no longer have.

This means that we cannot always read the Bible literally. While developing our theology from the scriptures must demonstrate integrity with the historical meaning of the text, our readings are not bound by those original meanings as we seek to bring theological relevancy to our own context.

Yet, as we read and interpret the text of scripture to this end, we must also recognize our own presuppositions. Each of us reads from our own ideologies that are often culturally transmitted to us. We approach the biblical text with these ideologies, which often leads to our reading our presuppositions into the texts of scriptures without realizing it.

Moreover, we often do not recognize such ideologies and presuppositions, and in not doing so, we cling to misunderstandings and misinterpretations of biblical passages that are not true to the text or a critical approach to its interpretation.

Indeed, such misinterpretations may be so deeply embedded in our cultural locations that they may be hard to set aside. They are often like a pair of old spectacles that have become a part of who we are and through which we see everything. If we are to read the texts faithfully in order to shape a more relevant and meaningful theology, we must take them off, at least for the purpose of seeing the text differently.

A primary step in doing this is to read the text of scripture in a community that may offer challenges to our individual understandings. A text of scripture does not have a single meaning limited to authorial intent, and no one person has greater authority in interpreting a text of scripture. A scriptural passage may have a multiplicity of valid theological meanings, and reading in community can help us see other meanings.

Yet, while we can read them in the communities we call our churches, this may only reinforce the same presuppositions. Others from our community wear similar glasses, for we typically associate with those who look like us, talk like us, and are from the same social and economic situations.

Reading the text with people from other races, other cultures, other social and economic conditions, and other ways of thinking about God and humanity can help us recognize our presuppositions and assist us in seeing the text vastly different. Moreover, reading the text with those both inside and outside our community can offer the Spirit a way of leading us to fresh interpretations that shape our theological thinking.


Anonymous said...

I like what you say. It seems that an uncritical reading of the sacred text turns the scriptures into a paper pope.

Ned Netterville said...

Government health care, or any other government program, is funded by taxation, which is utterly dependent on force. Every taxing statute includes enFORCEment provisions. Jesus healed with his own resources. He did not ask Caesar to send out his thugs to collect some funds to succor the man in the ditch beset by robbers. There is nothing noble or charitable in using OPM (sounds like opium, is equally addicting, and stands for other people's money)to succor the poor. Making government dependents of poor people is worse than spitting in their faces. For a little more in depth, biblical analysis of health care, visit ><