Postmodern Bible Interpretation
Categories: Controversial Topics, ReligionPostmodern philosophy is a point of view that says you cannot isolate binary opposites like knowledge & ignorance or presence & absence. Many people think of postmodernism as being relativistic, which it sort of is, unless you want to mince words. In that case, postmodernism is more about being open to truth or meaning from different sources, while relativism is more about getting rid of authority and meaning. For most, it’s probably a matter of semantics and postmodernism and relativism are seen as pretty much the same.
So I ask this question:
If postmodernism is saying there is more than one truth, that meaning is more subjective than objective, and more than one person can be right in holding different views of truth… isn’t that what many (most?) Bible studies are like?
People get together to read the Bible and discuss it, and they ask, “What does this mean to you?” or “How do you feel about this verse?” Since there is no real authority with regards to Bible interpretation, everyone is open to their own takes on it. Ostensibly under the influence of the Holy Spirit, but still coming to different conclusions. Sometimes quite opposite conclusions. And what does the Christian have to fall back on as an authority? Most will say that they would ask their pastor. But that’s not really any different from any other individual saying what the passage means, except that the pastor would probably have studied more. Then we just bump the question from differences between individuals’ interpretations up to the level of the seminaries and THEIR interpretations.
Many Christians champion the Bible as an objective source of truth, flying in the face of postmodernism, and yet when it comes to establishing the meaning of difficult passages, there IS no objective source of authority for interpreting it.
(Unless you go along with Catholicism’s view, saying that the Church has been the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) for the last 2,000 years.)
I’ve never heard any non-Catholic provide a good explanation or resolution for this issue. Most Protestants just accept that we can’t agree on everything and leave it at that. That makes me sad, because Jesus prayed that His Church would be brought to complete unity and I seem to remember that unity is to be a sign of the Church. But when we can’t agree on the meanings of Scripture, where’s the unity?
[tags]bible study, interpretation, postmodernism[/tags]
Na
September 29th, 2006 at 18:31
Interesting topic. I’m a protestant Christian and I wholeheartedly disagree with the prevailing notion that the Bible would not be the source of objective truth. Of course it is! The problem lies with all those believers coming together for Bible Study but not accepting that their emotions are not relevant to understanding the Bible. They should acknowledge that it is the other way round: the Bible is relevant to the understanding of their emotions.
I’ve been to Bible studies in different coutries and mostly after a few times I left the group. Why? Because Bible studies seem to revolve about what individual people “get out of it” or, as you say, what a passage “means” to them or how they “feel” about things.
I am convinced it is a great evil having individuals expressing their emotions about passages because when these feelings are not in accord with the objective truth contained in those passages, it is very often the objective truth that is “softened up.” When someone upholds the objective truth and this contradicts the feelings of a brother or sister, very often the others in the Bible study group defend the “right” of the believer to have and express his or her feelings.
Proverbs 9:10 in my version of the KJV reads: “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.” But I think in many people’s Bibles the passage may read something like: “the feeling of the believer is the beginning of wisdom and the discovery of personal meaning is understanding.”
So I for one don’t accept that we can’t agree on everything. I realise it’s the state of affairs, but I’m very much opposed to leaving it at that.
And the root of it all? The present day belief that God is love only. The notion among many, many Christians today that we should not have to fear God, now that Jesus Christ has saved us.
It’s very good to be saved. But it doesn’t nullify the command to fear God. On the contrary. Alas, as long as believers think that love and salvation are all that matters, they will remain ignorant of the massive amount of objective truth in the Bible.