Category Archives: Hermeneutics
thoughts on islamophobia and fundamentalism
Anders Behring Breivik
How easy it is for Australians to jump to the conclusion that Islamic extremists are responsible for all forms of terrorism. The latest tragedy in Norway represents a prime example of this.
(In saying this I do not mean to in any way negate the scope of the tragedy, or divert attention from the horrific 91+ deaths of mostly young people; I merely intend to discuss one aspect of the issue from the point of view of this blog’s theme.)
The New York Times claimed that initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants (with, it seems, no credible evidence for this).
The UK’s Guardian suggested that, “The most tempting and immediate conclusion was that it would be a jihadist group,” (again with no credible evidence).
Australia’s Andrew Bolt put his suspicions out in the open Read the rest of this entry
Like this:
brief thoughts on suffering and theology
That the central event in the Christian faith is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus should lead to, among many things, reflection on how we approach theological thought about contemporary issues.
Indeed, God came to us in the form of a human named Jesus, and thus he suffered as a human. He probably grazed his knees as a child. He probably gashed his hand as a carpenter. He most definitely mourned the death of loved ones.
And of course he suffered when he was crucified.
It seems that the clearest revelation of God we have explicitly models him suffering with others who are both socially and ontologically inferior. Should this model serve as an example to us of how possibly to approach theology? Read the rest of this entry
walter wink on homosexuality & the bible (part 3): conclusions
This post is the third part of a series on Walter Wink’s views on homosexuality and the Bible. It is advisable to read Part 1 on the Old Testament and Part 2 on the New Testament before continuing below.
The very notion of a “sex ethic” reflects the materialism and splitness of modern life, in which we increasingly define our identity sexually. Sexuality cannot be separated off from the rest of life. No sex act is “ethical” in and of itself, without reference to the rest of a person’s life, the patterns of the culture, the special circumstances faced, and the will of God. What we have are simply sexual mores, which change, sometimes with startling rapidity, creating bewildering dilemmas. Just within one lifetime we have witnessed the shift from the ideal of preserving one’s virginity until marriage, to couples living together for several years before getting married. The response of many Christians is merely to long for the hypocrisies of an earlier era.
- Walter Wink
In this final offering on Walter Wink’s views set out in his article Homosexuality and the Bible, I will attempt to gather up the loose ends that have escaped the net spread out in the previous two posts of this series.
For Wink there is nothing more and nothing less at stake in this debate than the way we read Scripture. His view seems to be that literalistic readings will not do, given that the Bible is culturally bound (it was inspired by God through culturally-bound humans), and that our readings/interpretations are necessarily selective and culturally bound: Read the rest of this entry
walter wink on homosexuality & the bible (part 2): new testament
This post is the second part of a series on Walter Wink’s views on homosexuality and the Bible. It is advisable to read Part 1 on the Old Testament before continuing below.
The debate over homosexuality is a remarkable opportunity, because it raises in an especially acute way how we interpret the Bible, not in this case only, but in numerous others as well. The real issue here, then, is not simply homosexuality, but how Scripture informs our lives today.
Fresco from the Tomb of the Diver, c.475 BC. Paestum, Italy.
With these words of Walter Wink we launch into the second part of this series on homosexuality and the Bible. In the last post I summarised Wink’s case as presented in his article Homosexuality and the Bible in regards to the Old Testament. In short his argument could be summarised as claiming we cannot simple say “the Bible says” while holding an inconsistent approach to interpretation in which we allow some parts of the Bible to dictate our behaviour while ignoring others for no reason other than arbitrary selection (based on our own cultural preferences). In this sequel I will summarise Wink’s comments on each of the relevant New Testament passages that speak directly about homosexuality (since there are only a few). Read the rest of this entry
walter wink on homosexuality & the bible (part 1): old testament
Sexual issues are tearing our churches apart today as never before. The issue of homosexuality threatens to fracture whole denominations, as the issue of slavery did a hundred and fifty years ago. We naturally turn to the Bible for guidance, and find ourselves mired in interpretative quicksand. Is the Bible able to speak to our confusion on this issue?
These words of Dr. Walter Wink, professor emeritus at Auburn Theological Seminary, ring truer than ever as Australians engage in constant debate about homosexual marriage. Whatever our position we must recognise that this is not a simple debate, nor is it abstract; it affects real people who are made in the image of God.
This post begins a two-part (maybe three-part?) series on Walter Wink’s thoughts on the Bible and homosexuality. This series is intended for the purpose of asking important hermeneutical and exegetical questions that often go overlooked in the course of all-too-common prooftexting. Such a practice is, in my view, inconsistent; why do we accept some of the Bible’s imperatives, but not others? Surely we need deeper biblical engagement on complex issues such as homosexuality. It is for this kind of discussion that I offer these posts. Read the rest of this entry
even the bible is a vulnerable text
After watching an online video posted on my Facebook feed of a well-known pastor preaching about Heaven and Hell, I thought it appropriate to post a thought or two.
This particular pastor preached from Luke 16:19-31. During the sermon they made numerous references to the fact that they are “telling the truth” and that they are simply repeating the words of Jesus (which are apparently not in need of any form of interpretation, but rather are self-evidently comprehendible, even over the temporal distance of 2000 years).
The issue here of course is that no text, regardless of where or whom they are from (even God) can simply be considered self-evidently comprehendible.
I look to Paul Ricoeur for wisdom at this point. Read the rest of this entry
scripture: principles or narrative?
Does anyone think there is an problem when we treat the Bible as a set of principles?
After all, the Bible as a whole forms not a constitution but a narrative.
Stories are beautiful things. They draw us into their world and have the potential to convey experiences. This transmission leads us in turn to partake of these experiences.
Stories thus preclude abstraction. It is somewhat unnatural to spin a story into an abstract esotericism.
None of this is to say that drawing principles from the Bible is necessarily bad. However maybe we need more care and humility; care that we do not profane the beauty of the narrative with constitutional exegesis, and humility so that we do not think our principles to be as inspired as the narrative (we can always be wrong).
Of course there are parts of the Bible that are more given to the derivation of principles – proverbs, the epistles – though is it not also true that such texts find their place in the larger narrative of God’s action in history, much like a monologue in a movie.
Perhaps we should worry less about drawing principles from the Bible, which are almost always altered by our worldview as they pass from the text to current reality. Perhaps we should worry more about letting the narrative of the Bible draw us into its world, so they we might partake of its reality and bring this experience to bear on our world.
MCA
wicked?! says who?…
So I went and saw the musical Wicked the other night.
It was amazing!
I enjoyed it so immensely that I am even blogging about it! Well… kind of. I’m actually blogging on it because it made so many great philosophical points that I could write about it for a year.
The storyline of Wicked follows the background of the Wicked Witch of the West from the Wizard of Oz. While I won’t divulge any major plot details, the point is that the Witch isn’t as wicked as she appears from the WoOz telling of the story.
Of course, because I can’t give away much of the story it is hard to say much about the many themes that the production delivered.
Perhaps the most dominant and obvious theme was the reality of perspectivism – indeed, the perceived wickedness of the Witch depicted in WoOz turns out to be a distortion of the truth. Sadly this distortion is the result of imperial-like propaganda that covers the land in order to profane the Witch and protect the rulers, of whom she knows too much.
What can such a fictional depiction say to us?
Does it affect how we listen to imperial scare mongering that demonises certain people groups and minorities because they are misunderstood, or because it is politically advantageous?
Does it affect how we speak about issues of which we understand little or nothing? Indeed, what if we have the story wrong? What if we don’t know the truth at all? Worse, what if we are spreading lies, and profaning innocent people or groups (albeit unwittingly, or maybe not…)?
Deconstructive art like that of Wicked is, in my opinion, incredibly important in our world. It continually reminds us that beside the “official”, imperial version of a story, there is a marginalised and minority perspective of the same events. While the small voice of the minority is often trampled out, and their story forgotten, Wicked teaches us that their story/perspective is real, present and valuable, particularly if it embodies more truth than the “official” version which “Dorothys” like us too often fall for.
We often need to be reminded about the small voices in our world – the poor, the asylum seeker, the homeless, the child, the sex slave, the homosexual…
… the “wicked.”
MCA
the WORD as a light for “the word”
Interpreting Scripture can be a joyous experience, but also one that can bring with it much impassioned and naive debate. This was illustrated by a friend of mine recently who shared an experience he had while teaching a college subject. The subject of discussion was interpretation of the Bible, and one of his students said something along the lines of;
“I feel like the Bible is pretty clear to me; when I read it I just understand it.”
No doubt postmodern commentators would absolutely tear such a comment to shreds – and rightly so. While such a comment may indeed reveal a deep faith and trust in the Scriptures and the God who inspired them, it is also severely naive.
It can be a frustrating experience for a Bible teacher to meet someone who insists no background knowledge of the biblical text is needed to understand it because God wrote it so therefore he must have made it speak to all generations equally. While the Bible does indeed speak to all generations, we should not confuse this as being synonymous with the Bible being equally understandable to all generations. The Bible is, of course, an ancient text, and so we must understand that the cultural and linguistic differences between us and its authors are significant. Thus, to really understand what was written requires some insight into the world in which the Bible was authored.
No doubt some people will refute this perspective by saying something like “God is bigger than history, so he can author a book that just makes sense to all humans at any time in any place.”
What I am about to say in response may be uncomfortable for some, but here it goes; Writing a text that is equally understandable for all humans at all times in history in any place is impossible – even for God…
It might be that you now think I’m a heretical nominee-for-a-stake-burning; after all, the Bible itself says “what is impossible for men is possible with God.” I urge you to read on and at least see my point and then judge me. I am offering the starting place for a possible model of interpreting the Bible, and that model is what I will call an Incarnational model. The central concept of this model is Jesus himself.
Reconstruction of a first century male Jewish head. Jesus likely would have looked something like this.
Jesus was born around 4BCE in Palestine. He was a Galilean Jew, from a poor peasant family living in a rural agrarian society.
He was male.
He was, by all estimates, a carpenter for some of his life. He then began his ministry at around the age of thirty as a single man who would never marry and who would remain poor. He never travelled more than a few days walk from his place of birth.
Jesus was eventually killed by crucifixion as a political enemy of the Roman state. This was at least partly because of his protest against the Jewish religious/political system which exploited the poor and oppressed.
Now, let me just make a few more points about Jesus before I move on.
Jesus was not born in 3000BCE. Or 500CE. Or 1517CE. Or 2009CE.
He was not an Ephesian, or a Western European, or an African, or an American. He certainly wasn’t a Gentile.
Jesus wasn’t rich and didn’t live in an urban middle-class society.
Jesus wasn’t female.
He wasn’t a blacksmith, or a doctor, or a school teacher, or an electrician.
Jesus wasn’t married, and he never went to the UK on a work Visa.
Jesus didn’t die from a heart attack, or cancer, or old age. He certainly didn’t align himself with injustice and exploitation.
See, it’s one thing to say Jesus’ incarnation meant he became human and that he represented all humanity. It is another thing to say he became every type of human – this second statement would be incorrect. By being born just prior to the first century CE, Jesus necessarily wasn’t born in some other time period. By being born Jewish, Jesus wasn’t born Gentile etc. etc. etc. The point is that though Jesus is God, even God himself when incarnated could not possibly become every kind and type of human there is in the world – it would be impossible even for him. The Incarnation necessarily implies the narrowing down of God into a society, culture, time, place, race, gender, family, job, social status, personality type, hair colour, eye colour, accent, means of death etc. When God became human it meant that he took on the limits of humanity, even the limits of identity.
If we look at the Bible in light of Jesus, then, perhaps we start to see some truths emerge. If Jesus was both God and man, and the Bible is meant to be authored the same way, are we able to see the analogies that arise?
Jesus lived in a certain time > the Bible was written in a certain time frame
Jesus lived in a certain place > the Bible was written in a certain set of places
Jesus lived in a certain culture > the Bible was written in a certain culture(s)
etc.
The Scriptures, being written by humans inspired by God, necessarily implies all the temporal, material and spacial limitations of this world, just as Jesus did when he became human. Such a way of looking at Scripture could have consequences for two opposing ways of interpretation that have gone before.
1) For the view that we can just read the Bible as is because God wrote it. It is unrealistic to think that God could somehow make any human language speak the same way to humans at all times in all places (by the way, keep in mind that the Bible translation you use is not the original text – it has been translated for you from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek. Can you read those languages? If not, are you really reading “what God wrote” per se?). I won’t say more because I feel like I have gone on about my point already in regards to this view.
2) For extreme postmodern views. Now don’t get me wrong, I think postmodernism (when looked at honestly) has much to say to us, particularly in its critique of the Enlightenment (and its dehumanising myths) and its attack on absolute objectivity (an impossibility). However extreme postmodern views, whereby texts simply mean whatever meaning I perceive them to have, are melted away by God’s presence in history. Jesus was actually a Jew, and he was actually killed on a cross, and was actually resurrected. If the Scriptures are at all analogous to this as I have suggested (maybe I’m wrong), then we must say there are actual cultural, temporal and spacial characteristics of the biblical text and that these cannot be simply swept away by perspectivism.
Ultimately all I’m saying is that I think there is an analogy between the divinity-in-humanity of Jesus and that of the Scriptures. I think that this should be taken into account when forming a hermeneutic. My thoughts here make certain assumptions, yes, though they also force us to think seriously about what it meant for Jesus to be both God and man, and how the Bible is, in its own way, similar to this. If understanding Jesus means understanding his historical incarnation as a limited human, doesn’t the same apply to Scripture?
Like I said these are just some thoughts thrown together into a suggestion for further thought. I hope they inspire you to go beyond what I have said, and to correct where I have said things that are not quite right.
MCA
what is the purpose of the bible?
(N.B. This is an updated post which previously asked the question “What is the purpose of Scripture?” as an open discussion, hence the first few comments by others, which were responses to that original discussion question, might seem a bit out of context.)
Many discussions I have with people involve the Bible (not surprisingly). I am always interested to find out how people view Scripture; What is its purpose? What kind of authority does it have, and why? What kind of truth does it tell us? How do we interpret it? For today I am going to restrict my focus to the question of the Bible’s purpose. Keep Reading…
