[amc] Long, Boring Meditation on Biblical Interpretation
- From: "Nevitt D. Reesor" <reesor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Austin Mennonite Church <amc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 17:55:46 -0600
Steve,
I think we actually agree with one another on certain basic points,
but I suspect we tend to draw different conclusions from the history
of biblical interpretation. I must admit that my mind is far from
unified on this or any other substantive issue. Thus, I sometimes
argue from opposing points of view because I seem to be stuck
permanently upon the horns of a number of dilemmas without any means
of escape in view. (There are also, of course, pedagogical reasons
for arguing opposing sides of an issue.) With regard to biblical
interpretation, my mind is occupied by at least two personalities,
and probably more. Two of the dominant participants in the never-
ending dialog are Faithful Christian (FC) and Rational Skeptic (RS).
It seems unnecessary to mention the views of FC because everyone on
the list is probably fairly familiar with what FC would say. So, I
have concentrated on giving voice to RS. RS, by the way, thinks he
wants to be a Christian, maybe even a Christian somewhat like FC, but
finds this a challenge to his intellectual integrity and his
determination to face reality with as few comforting illusions as
possible.
So, here's the corrosive analysis of RS. If biblical interpretation
shifts along with changes in culture, this suggests that biblical
interpretation does not reflect the revelation of a Divine will as
much as prevailing cultural mores, or at least the prevailing mores
of particular subcultures, whose responses to the Bible are driven by
cultural forces at particular points in history. For example, perhaps
Luther's reformative interpretation of the Bible resulted largely
from social forces active at the time such as the rise of
individualism, more widespread education, disaffection with
ecclesiastical authority, the increasing development of naturalism
and rationalism, etc. (I don't know the history very well, so I'm
guessing.) So, Luther's interpretation of the Bible may not be so
much a clarification or recovery of the Divine will as a statement in
theological language of moral principles emerging in the play of
cultural forces.
Similarly in the case of homosexuality. I agree that the scientific
and sociological evidence (what little I know of it) suggests that
homosexuality is like ethnicity: it's just a natural part of
particular human beings and so is morally neutral. But this reflects
prevailing cultural attitudes. I have heard it argued to the contrary
that homosexuality is not like ethnicity but like alcoholism: a
disease for which some unfortunate individuals have a genetic
predisposition. We still call alcoholism a disease because it is
harmful to the human organism. Those subject to this condition should
never drink alcohol. Those who use this argument say that
homosexuality is also destructive to the human organism (I don't know
what evidence they cite), and so homosexuals should remain celibate.
Which interpretation is "correct"? Isn't it just a matter of
whichever community one happens to be associated with or attracted
to? (Never end a sentence with a preposition.) At best it seems to be
more a matter of interpreting scientific data than interpreting or
discovering the Divine will.
But as soon as we make something like our conception of human health
the criterion for what counts as sin, we have moved the concept of
sin out of the domain of theology and into the domain of humanistic
construction. Why even resort to the Bible or the notion of the
Divine will? Why not just become secular humanists? It seems to me
that in order to remain a theological concept, "sin" has to be
defined as something like, "whatever is contrary to the Divine will."
If the concept changes with changes in human culture, with the
advance of science, for example, then why are we appealing to
theology and to scripture? If we as a community get to decide what
the Bible means, then this is just another constructive project on a
smaller scale.
Of course, FC will say something like, "You evil, hyper-rational,
faithless bore! What you call the movement of cultural forces is
actually the hand of God working in human history! It was the Holy
Spirit who prompted Luther (or Menno Simons; pick your favorite
reformer) to institute new ways of understanding the Bible! It is the
Holy Spirit who motivates a community toward a consensus of
interpretation! Also, God always wills whatever is best for
humankind, and if homosexuality is consistent with human health and
thriving, then it must be consistent with the Divine will!"
RS replies, "Maybe. But how would you ever know if all this happened
through inspiration of the Spirit or through natural processes of
cultural change? If changes in biblical interpretation can be
accounted for fairly easily and obviously in terms of natural
processes, why appeal to supernatural influences? Isn't this the same
question at the heart of the evolution debates? Also, notions
regarding what is 'healthy' for humankind change from place to place
and time to time. To say that the Divine will changes along with
these trends is to say that the Divine will reflects cultural mores
and that prevailing cultural mores actually supersede prior beliefs
regarding the content of the Divine will. Again, why not just
eliminate God from the process altogether and become secular humanists?"
RS's parting shot:
Biblical literalists want to impose ancient cultural prejudices upon
modern society. Christian liberals want to justify modern cultural
prejudices by adjusting and manipulating Scripture to accommodate
them. Our moral commitments drive rather than derive from our
theology and our interpretation of the Bible. We decide what we want
to believe, and then we figure our how to "interpret" scripture to
support these beliefs.
Nevitt
On Mar 5, 2006, at 8:53 AM, Steve Friesen wrote:
Thanks for those observations, Nevitt. I'll just add a quick comment
(have
to get ready for church :-)
I also think, however, that this is a
difficult position to defend scripturally. My suspicion is that those
who claim that scripture does not treat homosexuality as a sin have
to resort to a lot of rather fancy footwork and very careful
"analysis" of particular passages. Personally, I would "defend" it
through a rather skeptical and deconstructive theological view that
leaves most of Christian theology in smoking ruins. So, my view will
not be much help toward dealing with the conference.
People often describe a welcoming theology as "not taking the bible
literally" or "explaining the bible away". I don't think that's
accurate.
Everyone selects; everyone has to choose. It's the nature of the game.
Biblical arguments against homosexuality tend to select passages about
homosexuality and take those passages literally. But they usually don't
take others literally: ban on pork, ban on images of God, what to do
when
there's mold in your house, women covering their heads in worship,
only men
teaching men, approval of slavery, polygamy, etc. So the question
is, *how*
do you take the bible seriously? Where do you put your focus? And
*how* do
you decide where to put your focus?
Mennonites have a mixed track record on this score. We have a brilliant
record on things like focusing on compassion, and on community
discernment
in the spirit. At the same time we have a dismal record in our
tendency to
define particular clothing or tools as worldly or righteous.
That doesn't answer the question, does it? At least it ssuggests
that we
need lots of community discussion on issues like this in order to
work out
an appropriate position.
My opinion: I think that because of what we've learned from science and
other kinds of research, we should say that we Christians were wrong
to call
homosexuality a sin and repent from the oppression we have caused. I
think
it's appropriate now to hold that the biblical ideals of faithfulness
apply
to both straights and gays. I have also experienced that this kind of
affirming congregational stance brings lots of rich resources into the
church. Exclusion makes us weaker.
Steve
-------
Austin Mennonite Church, (512) 926-3121 www.mennochurch.org
To unsubscribe: use subject "unsubscribe" sent to amc-
request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-------
Austin Mennonite Church, (512) 926-3121 www.mennochurch.org
To unsubscribe: use subject "unsubscribe" sent to amc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
