Tag: hermeneutics

  • It's About the Interpreter… And More

    by Allan R. Bevere

     

    Sunset banner

    Recently, I went to the Cleveland Museum of Art with my daughter, Alyssa to see a special exhibit. If you love art museums and find yourself in Cleveland, Ohio you need to put its art museum on your itinerary. It is one of the best art museums in the country and, except for special exhibits, it is always free.
    One of my favorite paintings can be found in Clevelandโ€™s art museumโ€”Frederic Churchโ€™s, โ€œTwilight in the Wildernessโ€ (pictured left). Church painted this masterpiece depicting twilight in the American West in 1860. What Church meant to portray in this painting was known only to Church, but that has not stopped the paintingโ€™s admirers from speculating as to what the artist wanted to communicate.
    Some see in the painting an optimistic view of Americaโ€™s future with the so-called โ€œwestward expansion,โ€ and even though it is twilight, it signifies that a better day is dawning. Others see exactly the opposite. In 1860, Civil War was only a year away; and even though no one was sure at that time war would be the result over the issue of slavery that no one in the country could any longer ignore, many were seeing ominous signs on the horizon. Perhaps, therefore, Church was emphasizing the twilightโ€”that a darkness was about to envelop the United States with the bright colors of the sky highlighting the good days that were about to pass from the scene.[ene_ptp] Whatever Church was trying to portray and no matter what others may see in this magnificent painting, one thing is clear; those who perceive are just as significant as the one who paints what is perceived, just as those who interpret written texts are just as important as the one who wrote the text. It is impossible to divorce the interpreter from the interpreterโ€™s own context in order to render an โ€œobjectiveโ€ interpretation. That is not to say that the โ€œoriginalโ€ context of what was painted or written is unimportant. Nor is the intention of the artist or the author insignificant, and though such intention may be quite difficult to discover, it is a worthy endeavor all the same. But just as we cannot extrapolate โ€œourselvesโ€ from any of our experiences in life in order to have the view from nowhere, so we cannot get out of our own interpretive skin when gazing at paintings in an art museum or in reading a novel or the newspaper or in studying the Scripture in order to give an interpretation that is… well… free from interpretation.
    This is not to suggest that all interpretations are created equal, that one reading of a text is just as valid as another. We donโ€™t live life that way, treating the interpretation of STOP signs as up to each individual driver, and neither should we employ such a โ€œrelativeโ€ hermeneutic. But we must understand that when we engage in interpretation we engage ourselves, who we are in all of our experience.
    Focus does indeed determine reality, but it is a good thing to question whether we have focused on the right things when we engage in the hermeneutical endeavor. The interpreter cannot extrapolate herself from reality, but she must also understand that reality is larger than her own context.
    In hermeneutics it is about the interpreter, but it is also about more.
    [slideshow_deploy id=’2564′]

    Click on any picture for more information or to order

  • Why I Donโ€™t Argue for Inerrancy โ€“ Too Much

    Why I Donโ€™t Argue for Inerrancy โ€“ Too Much

    by Elgin Hushbeck

    I believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. While I believe the Bible to be inerrant, rarely do I argue for inerrancy.   First off, let me briefly explain what I mean by the Bible is the inerrant word of God. While it is possible to be much more explicit, basically I believe that the Bible as written by the Apostles and Prophets is correct in all that the authors intended it to say. (Those wishing a more in-depth discussion should google The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, or get Norman Geislerโ€™s excellent book, Inerrancy).

    Note that this brief definition avoids all of the problems of textual issues, translations, and interpretation and in fact most of the issues that are behind a lot of disagreements we have as Christians. This is in fact part of the reason I do not argue for Inerrancy, though my main reasons fall into two categories, one for non-Christians and one for Christians.

    Why I donโ€™t argue inerrancy with non-Christians.

    For Non-Christians, this is pretty straight forward and easy. It is pointless, I donโ€™t need to, and in fact it only makes things harder.   Inerrancy is a theological doctrine, grounded on many beliefs, some of which are an integral part of being a Christian. For example, a key underpinning for inerrancy is the belief in the existence of God. Thus how can one argue for inerrancy with an atheist?

    More importantly, when dealing with non-Christians, inerrancy is not required. That one does not need to accept inerrancy is amply demonstrated by those Christians who reject the doctrine. Thus for me, why would I want to put a potential stumbling block in the path of someone who needs Christ?

    Not only is it not required it makes things harder. Even when I was an atheist I never bought the argument that if there is even one error in the Bible the entire book should be tossed out. Apply that rule universally, we would not have any books. When I claim inerrancy, I take on an impossible burden of proof. How could I ever demonstrate that there was not even a single error in any of the books? I couldnโ€™t.

    Instead of taking on this impossible burden, when dealing with non-believers I discuss reliability, not inerrancy. If the Bible is reliable when it talks about the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus, and the implications of this in our lives, what else do I need? Showing the Bible is reliable is actually fairly straight forward, and it is the critics who have to come up with special rules and exceptions so as to avoid conclusions they do not wish to reach. (See my books, Evidence for the Bible, and Christianity and Secularism) Finally, when you get right down to it, the problem of conversion is not a rational problem of arguments and evidence. It is a spiritual problem of the heart.

    Why I donโ€™t argue inerrancy with Christians.

    While the above reasons are valid when talking with non-Christians, they donโ€™t apply, or apply only secondarily with other Christians. With other Christians my reasons for not arguing inerrancy center around relevance. In short inerrancy simply does not come up that often. As I stated above, a key feature of the definition of inerrancy is that it avoids all the problems of textual issues, translations, and interpretation. While that is good for the doctrine of inerrancy, it does not help when settling other doctrinal disagreements and it is just a fact that there are doctrinal disagreements even among those who those hold to inerrancy. Thus inerrancy is usually the last place I go when attempting to resolve doctrinal disputes.
    In addition, Inerrancy is not a clear teaching of scripture in the sense that there is a passage that says: the Bible is inerrant. While I believe there is a solid scriptural basis, there remain a few steps of faith and issues of interpretation, and so I can see where rational people could reach a different conclusion.

    So does all this mean that I think the doctrine is unimportant? Not at all. But I think there is a deeper issue here: How do we see ourselves in relation to Godโ€™s word. Do we sit in judgment of Godโ€™s word or does Godโ€™s word sit in judgment of us?

    There are those verses in the Bible that I wish were not there; verses that do not conform to my understanding of the way I think things should be. It would be far easier to say, โ€œthat apostle didnโ€™t know any better,โ€ or โ€œthat prophet made a mistake,โ€ so I could simply ignore the passage. A key โ€œdisadvantageโ€ of inerrancy is that this is not an option. On the other hand, there are a lot of people who profess inerrancy and yet avoid all such troublesome issues simply because they do not read the Bible in the first place.

    Instead I must wrestle with the text, digging deeper, trying to understand the background and the setting, trying to figure out why God would say such a thing. Most of all, I must pray for understanding, seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Granted, this is no guarantee. At the end of the process it is still not hard to find ways to ignore troublesome and difficult passages. The line between being a judge of the text, and being judged by the text is often quite fine, and I do not make any claims of perfection in this area.

    So even though I believe in the doctrine of inerrancy, I rarely argue for it. Instead, I argue that we place ourselves under, not over, the word of God. That we wrestle with those passages that we find difficult, and that by doing so we let the Holy Spirit transform our lives.


  • The Battle for the Bible

    by Steve Kindle

    I'm Right coverThe Christian church has never had a uniform understanding of how to interpret the Bible, nor has it had uniformity of belief over its now nearly 2000 years of attempts to do so. The historic creeds were an effort in this direction, but failed to unite all parties. Even among the proponents of the creeds, not all agreed on how to understand each proposition. There is no reason to expect that universal agreement will ever happen; in fact, there is every reason to believe it will never happen. Why? Because truth is ultimate and human beings are finite, incapable of accessing ultimate truth, though we likely touch the “hem of the garment” on occasion. I have no problem with that. My problem is with those who claim to have accessed the ultimate and want to make me (and you) conform to their notions of what the Bible means.
    The title of this post is also the title of a book written by a former editor of Christianity Today, the late Harold Lindsell, back in 1976. He argued that if an interpreter or institution began from the position that the Bible is not inerrant, it could only end in error. The battle that surfaced from this firestorm wasnโ€™t among those Evangelicals who fought for inerrancy against the liberals, but over just what inerrancy meant among Evangelicals! Even here, agreement is hard to come by.
    My book, Iโ€™m Right and Youโ€™re Wrong! is an effort to understand why committed Christians, including even the loftiest of intellectuals and holiest of saints, read the Bible differently, and come to varying, even contradictory conclusions. This is no mere intellectual enterprise, for it involves the very nature of being human, our relationships with others, and our attitude toward those with whom we disagree. How we comport ourselves in relation to others who are involved in interpreting the Bible may well be the best evidence of our Christ-like spirit.
    The focus on inerrancy seemed like a good way to approach biblical interpretation until we dive even a little below the surface. Even if we acknowledge that the โ€œautographsโ€ (original canonical writings) were divinely inspired and free from error, we donโ€™t have them. This makes that point moot. Add to this that the writings must, by necessity, be interpreted, and for inerrancy to have any immediate meaning, they must be inerrantly interpreted. And there are no inerrant interpreters (that I know of).
    Add to this that translations of the Bible are, themselves, interpretations. Any number of articles have been written to demonstrate that theologies often control how certain verses are translated. No matter how good a translation might be, it is always two to three thousand years removed from its origin, and replicating the mindset of the original writer is fraught with difficulty. Even knowing the biblical languages is no panacea as the linguists argue over interpretation as much as everyone else.
    Everything we read is filtered through our worldview, personality, and even our moods. Once, in an adult Bible study, I averred that there is no such thing as an uninterpreted verse in the Bible. One member said, โ€œI can think of a Bible verse that needs no interpretation.โ€ Tell us, what is it?โ€ He quoted, โ€œGod is love.โ€ My response? โ€œWhat do you mean by God, and what do you mean by love?โ€ My challenge is still on the table.
    I think the title of Lindsell’s book is a misnomer. It’s not a battle for the Bible as much as it’s a battle for my interpretation of the Bible to prevail.
    So, whatโ€™s a diligent reader of the Bible to do? That will be the subject of my next two posts. So, please stay tuned!

Energion Direct
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.