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”.
