As I begin reading the New Testament and the People of God, by N. T. Wright, I need to process the information that I am presented with. This is my attempt to summarize what I think I am reading. I don’t know if I fully agree with this as of yet, but it is intriguing, none the less.
Biblical interpretation can take several directions. Ways to classify the Bible include as 1) literature, 2) history, or 3) theology. Each has its strengths and its weaknesses. There are nuances to these approaches that differ depending on the age (pre enlightenment, modern, post modern) in which the interpretation was performed. (This is a very simplistic approach to many pages in the book!)
N. T. Wright supports an approach that draws from the strengths of each of these, which has been entitled “critical realism”. This method recognizes that the interpreter always has presuppositions which influence his approach to scripture. A wise interpreter will recognize this, allowing himself to reevaluate his presuppositions in light of his interpretation, which will likely change his presuppositions, which again will change his interpretation, and so on in a never ending spiral. Interpretation then is a dynamic process, influenced by ongoing encounters with the text and by the environment (education, culture, associates, etc.) of the interpreter.
But how does the interpreter determine truth?
The process described is actually similar to the scientific method, but without the “objectivity” we usually think of. There are a series of narratives, or stories that we live by, that describe our world view and influence our actions. We are presented with a world view by our upbringing, which we (re)evaluate throughout our life. We may recognize that our story has some weak points that don’t quite explain our experiences or “facts” as we see them. We may ignore these discrepancies and cling to our story, we may modify our story, or we may possibly look for a new story to adopt or adapt.
This is a dynamic ongoing life process. As we live, we form a series of hypotheses on how things should work based on our story. When we see that a hypothesis works, it strengthens our loyalty to our story. When it doesn’t work, and we are honest about it, we reevaluate. We are in effect putting together the jigsaw puzzle of life, seeing how the pieces best fit together to create the final picture. When they don’t quite fit well, we have to keep looking for a better fit.
More technically, we see the process as an interaction and tension between data and simplicity. Our hypothesis needs to consider all the data that pertains, including or rejecting the data as relevant, and then developing the simplest story that fits the data. As more data becomes available to us, we need to evaluate its applicability, and modify our story accordingly.
In the end, or at least for the time being, we each declare loyalty to the story that in our experience and with our presuppositions, works best for us. Our faith then, is really fairly pragmatic, but hopefully moving us toward the ultimate truth that exists in the Creator.
This is not to say that all roads lead to God, and that all stories are equally valid. If there is absolute truth, only the stories that are in alignment with truth are valid. But the only way for us to determine which stories fit the data, is to try them on for size, or as N. T. Wright says, “the proof is in the pudding”.
Hi David
ReplyDeleteIt may take me a while to get started... just a few comments for now: When I think of Biblical interpretation and its divisions I recall this acronym: DEPTH. Really, its DEPPPTH (I guess you could say that's really deep).
Doctrine
Exhortation
Prophecy
Promises
Precepts
Types
History
Seven is such a nice number and Biblical too. Any Scripture can be plugged into one of these catagories, and no teaching mechinism is complete without all of them. I am of course, not proclaming this to be the only way to view the subject.
"But how does the interpreter determine truth?"
This discussion from Mr Wrights book is a bit techinal for me. When dealing with the Scriptures though, I see two thoughts here that rather jump out at me... that thought about the jigsaw puzzle and the comment: “the proof is in the pudding”.
The Scriptures and the meaning that they hold which the Creator first intended is much like a puzzle. Of course when we put one together we have the privilege of glancing at the picture on the box lid to remind us of what we're building. With the Bible, I think we are somewhat hampered in the process because the picture we view is merely our view of what we presuppose them to be teaching. It is thus quite an easy thing to be afflicted with our own bias. I think it was Cowper who stated: "God is His own interpreter and he will make it plain." I like that thought. The Bible is not open to private interpretation (2 Peter 1: 20). So I find myself gathering thoughts on a subject and scattering them before me on a table-top and seeking to find the story they tell that is absent of any contradiction... thus, the proof really is in the pudding.
I have read a good bit along the lines of interpretation... I rather think that God leads us along a path He chooses for us... dropping us subtle hints so that we might seek to follow along. Simplicity is the key even though the Bible is so complex... The precepts of Christ, or as Paul called them, "The first principles," are relatively simple indeed. However, the depth of the Bible is like that of the ocean. Man has been on this planet for a long time and we're just beginning to crack the surface of the ocean's secrets. The Bible is like the ocean; shallow enough at the edges for a child to sit and spash, and deep enough further out for the elephants to swim. Let's swim with the elephants.
Jon,
ReplyDeleteI really like the ocean analogy!
God's "hints" come in many ways! In my younger years I rejected anything that sounded mystical, however I am much more open to possible ways God gives us those hints. Of course the Holy Sprit is active, as well as our inner created image of God that seeks fulfillment and manifestation. These along with our God given intellect and the community of believers, both living and dead, are voices that help us recognize and interpret those hints.
I don't mean to neglect discussing the Bible directly as an authoritative force in our faith. That is the basis of the discussion. The question is what interpretation of the Bible is right / best fits the puzzle / makes the best pudding?
"The question is what interpretation of the Bible is right / best fits the puzzle / makes the best pudding?"
ReplyDeleteYes, and perhaps I was dragging it off a bit also. Good and interesting question.
Denominationalism presents a problem, for as more and more divisions fragmented what was once a single body of believers, so came the increase of interpretations. Indeed, reading the early Pre-Nicean Church Fathers, one can see a plethera of ideas emerge. By the time we reach the era of the Great Reformation we have not only a large menu to choose from, but we have Reformation leaders disfellowshipping one another as a result of a difference of opinion as to interpretation (viz. Zwingli/Luther). So ofttimes the question today is not "Are you a Christian?" - but "What brand of Christian are you?"
I really dislike labels also by the way... but now, in this day and age we see the Lutheran Church with many branches; Wesleyan religion with many branches; etc. etc... and still these divisions continue to grow. Meanwhile, the simple religion of Christ as taught by He and His Apostles in the New Testament has become the rope in a tug of war. Each party of course assumes their interpretation is the correct one, when in reality they all fall short in some ways and they each have some redeeming qualities.
Thus, returning to the Scriptures, we see: "study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth."
And that's where the rubber meets the road
Not TRUE. The christians in the first century were organized into congregations. Letters sent to all of them when the older men in Jerusalem made decisions that would unite any who had believed in Jesus and saw evidence of him with his followers. Jesus said he would be with them until the end of the world. It is a matter of finding those Jesus is with. The dark ages and the apostasy did not cloud or confuse those that continued to believe the truth for Jesus about who was really trying to follow him.
ReplyDelete