As you’ll hear; Rob is my clever friend. He’s a lecturer at the Cornerstone Institute (www.cornerstone.ac.za) in Cape Town, and he does a huge amount of reading on Theology. He is the guy I go to when I’m completely stumped on something. I actually usually drive away from our coffees together feeling even more confused; realising that I was asking the wrong question all along, but I always have a load more to think about. Recently I have been doing a lot of thinking about how we use and abuse the Bible, and Rob is the guy who has helped the most as I’ve attempted to work through this stuff. You’ll see what I mean. Over to Rob:
Hey Sean, (and Rob if your following this)
Best post yet, cant wait for the 2nd instalment with the remaining 20 questions.
I like what is shared and agree with most of it, but (there is always a but and its right out the gate) it brings up further questions for me. Now I am well aware that my questions were there before I listened to this but it gives them more life.
You talk about Contextual study and Marginal Reading. My understanding of what is being said is that various “scriptures” almost has different meanings depending on the “reader” (taking into account context, etc).
If this is the case. Is there a line to be drawn and where?
If my context/education determines my understanding and application of the bible. Then there is a lot of conflicting understandings out there. Yet, if the bible is Gods word. Should it not be understandable to all its readers and should that understanding not be universal? Or is there there no correct or incorrect understanding?
I also realise theology is based on context and world view. They are all bias to the various coloured spectacles that are worn by the various Theologians. Thus I feel all formal/institutional theology is pot, merely one persons opinion on a finite God. Hence why it divides rather than edifies. Theology is merely a man made idea made into a belief – in short, trouble.
So where does this leave the bible. Clearly it is fallible as it is written, translated, interpreted and compiled with any agendas/bias. We can also not all know the context in which it was written (due to educational limitation) so as to decipher the inner/true meaning correctly. It is not reliable Historically (with part truths), nor scientifically (cause scientific knowledge was rather limited at the time, virtually non existent).
I am not wanting to through the baby out with the bathwater here. I just don’t think anyone can or should base any kind of solid belief system on it. In fact, I don’t think that is what the writers ever intended it to be used for.
Currently (not that I can currently bring myself to even opening it, for reasons you are aware of), I view it as a collection of journals and encounters with spirituality/enlightenment.
These are just humble ramblings from a humble being journeying through his mess.
Hey Lennit.
I appreciate your thoughtful response in which you raise some important questions to which I will try to respond.
Contextual bible study, in the words of Gerald West (the scholar who devised the method), is based on four important commitments: (1) a commitment to read the bible from the perspective of the poor and oppressed; (2) a commitment to read the bible in community with others, particularly those from contexts different from our own; (3) a commitment to read the bible critically; and (4) a commitment to individual and social transformation through contextual bible study. In other words, to read the bible contextually two things need to be maintained in conversation: the social location, or context, of the reader—which is always a factor in our reading of scripture—and the context of the scriptures. This means that the art of establishing the meaning of a passage of scripture requires an informed engagement with the biblical text and a serious acknowledgment of the role that our personal contexts play in shaping how we read and understand the text. The meaning of the text is not determined, exclusively, by the reader. But then neither is it determined, exclusively, by the context of the actual text—in as far as we are able to establish it.
If we look at the history of biblical interpretation, one of the conclusions we are bound to draw is that the church, its members, its ministers, and its scholars, have interpreted the biblical texts in a wide range of ways—often at odds and in conflict. There is diversity of perspective and understanding. At the same time, what emerges is something of a thread of understanding, a thread that evidences a kind of collective wisdom and understanding of what this or that passage means.
As each generation engages with the biblical text it does so with a view to making sense of these sacred writings in response to their social (and we might add, philosophical, economic, educational, cultural, etc.) location. Their interpretation, therefore, is always a product of their location. It is an unavoidable factor in our interpretation. There simply is no possibility of interpreting the bible without having our personal stories, or agendas, or denominational or religious affiliations, or whatever, affect the interpretation.
You seem to suggest by your question that it is not necessary to interpret the bible; that the bible should be fairly straightforward to understand and that its understanding should be universal. And yet the bible itself models the necessity for interpretation. Biblical authors frequently comment on other biblical texts, revising them, arguing with them, and alluding to them. [Biblical] texts need explanation. And such explanation is always going to reflect a local perspective rather than a universal on. For this reason I think it is dangerous to unthinkingly apply one interpretation or another without reading the text within your specific context. What is true for an academic reading of a passage, a reading in a university in the US, for example, is not necessarily true for an academic in a SA university.
You also raise the question of correct and incorrect interpretation. My sense is that it is better to speak of faithful and unfaithful interpretations precisely because, as you put it, who determines which interpretation is correct and which not. A faithful interpretation of the bible should lead to a faithful life. And a faithful interpretation is not a free for all. There are some factors that provide boundaries for interpretation; things like the text itself, the meaning of words, the historical setting, and the reader (present day), which is why contextual bible study is such a helpful methodology for engaging scripture.
I’ll leave it at that and see where the conversation goes.
Thanks Rob,
Your response is well received, clear and I think safe to say, understood. I agree whole heartedly. I like what you shared about referring to interpretations as faithful or unfaithful.
You have also helped me clarify my own thoughts a bit. And I think that what concerns my most is the whole issue of when an “idea” becomes a belief system. As this seems to be the dividing point when it comes to scripture.
No doubt ancient texts are, and should be, shrouded in mystery so as to call for the reader to ponder, peculate, wrestle so as to identify with it. My main concern is the drive and importance placed on the “need” for an institutionally educated reader over an enlightened reader (one who has encounter the text on a deeper level). Kind of like a disciple of the message rather than a student of the text.
Again this brings me back to the whole thing of ideas becoming belief systems.
We do need to approach scripture as you suggest above, as that is where we are (our world view). But my challenge for myself at the moment is, can we do it as spiritual beings rather that academics? As you share in the podcast, about encountering it as non-Greeks. I feel this is maybe where its power lies.
As mentioned before, I really do look forward to part 2. Or maybe just be a fly on the wall at some of you and Sean’s coffee meetings.
In a sense, I get the impression that “Repent and believe” means, “Stop thinking like a Greek and start thinking like a Hebrew.” I’d say it means more than that, but it doesn’t mean less than that.