“Interpretation occurs in the
expectation that, at certain points, one will be able to say what has not yet
been said.”[i] New Testament scholar Francis Watson writes
this sentence in his 1997 monograph Text
and Truth. He’s specifically
thinking of the interpretation of scripture, but what he says could apply to
how commentators interpret events, scholars interpret history, or how
scientists interpret history. I am
interested in his statement because my church is dealing with an issue of the interpretation
of scripture and of sexual and institutional ethics right now. Implied in Watson’s statement is the idea
that the interpreter adds something to the meaning of a written word or account
of an event. The interpreter might even
create meaning as much as the original author did.
I pastor a small Baptist Church
(125-150 people) in the United States.
One of the major issues everyone living in America in the first quarter
of the 21st century is dealing with is same sex marriage and other
LGBTQ-related questions. Should churches
and pastors preside over same-sex weddings?
Can a church have an openly, actively gay person serve as an ordained
deacon or pastor and remain faithful to the teachings of the Bible?
Baptists typically answer such
questions by asking a very specific question: what does the Bible say? However, Watson’s thought suggests we don’t
just react to the Bible, but to interpretations of it. The generative nature of interpretation is
particularly interesting in light of theological controversy as it relates to
church practice. This is true no matter
what the actual issue is. It could be homosexuality
or violence or race relations or worship style.
American church members have sparred with one another over all these
issues and many more. Whatever the controversy
of the day is, it is faced with the same query.
What does the Bible say? And,
whose interpretation holds sway in the church?
Interestingly, again regardless of
the specific issue, both sides (and it always cast as binary, even when more
than two perspectives are present) firmly believe that what they read in
scripture affirms the position they already hold. If their position is a radical departure from
the church’s traditional stance, then Watson’s assertion rings true. The Bible interpreter clarifies, adds
meaning, or changes meaning; the interpreter says what has not yet been
said.
My intention here is not to add
comments to the ongoing conversations on homosexuality currently being held in
churches across America, or to cast new light in the ongoing conversation in my
own church. Rather, I want to simply
ask, can we trust ourselves when we read the Bible? Can we trust our pastors when they read the
Bible? Can we trust our favorite authors
when we read what they write about the Bible?
Should someone say things about the Bible “that have not yet been
said?” Is it legitimate to read and
interpret in such a way that new revelations come from a 2000-year-old text?
To develop his own exploration of
the practice and effect of the interpretation of texts, Watson considers Frank
Kermode’s 1975 book The Classic. Kermode’s idea is that there is a “radical
indeterminacy within the text,” so that a “text in which one voice seems to
speak is in fact inhabited by many voices.”[ii] Finding the meaning, or even the primary
meaning in a text, say the Gospel of Mark, is impossible in this radical indeterminacy approach. Watson goes on to say, “from the standpoint
of Christian faith and theology, it is clear that such a reading of mark is
untenable.”[iii]
I agree. I don’t have the answer for how to reach “the
right” interpretation or how to discern whether someone has reached it. I have real trouble trusting Bible readers
who overconfidently insist that their interpretation is the interpretation. What I
propose is grace and humility before the text.
As an example, take the issue of
predetermination verses open theism (free will).[iv] I am
reasonably confident when I reject John Calvin’s notion of predeterminism[v]
in soteriology (theology of salvation).
I don’t believe anyone’s eternal destiny is determined so that they have
no opportunity to respond to God’s gracious offer of salvation. I don’t know what God knows about the future
or how the future, something that hasn’t happened yet, can be known. However, I trust the Bible’s consistent
presentation of God’s merciful love. So I trust that people can meet God the
Holy Spirit, receive grace, repent, and be saved. No one’s story is written before it is
written. I am confident of this.
However, I know that I have come to
this conclusion by way of God’s grace. I
know that my own theology is imperfect, hole-filled on my best days, and those
days don’t come around often enough. So,
when I debate a committed Calvinist, the “debate” is light-hearted discussion,
judgment-free, and carried out in love.
At least that’s how I hope those conversations go. That’s my intent. I have received such grace and friendship
from many a Calvinist who ardently disagreed with me. And in the end, I don’t know I am right. I think I am, but I don’t know.
I believe that humble interpretation
creates space for the Holy Spirit to lead the reader/preacher to the true
meaning of God’s word. The Bible becomes
word of God when it is preached, read, and lived. I have heard people say that a creative
interpreter can make a passage “say anything.”
As Watson said in critique of Kermode, I respond “such a statement is
untenable.” No, the Bible cannot and
does not mean anything we want it to mean or make it mean. The Holy Spirit speaking through the words of
scripture is the source of meaning, not the creative interpreter.
The story in the Bible expresses a
single, true message, not an indefinable, variegated ideological
patchwork. Sin, self-absorption, and
short-sightedness make it impossible for any reader to claim knowledge of the
single, true message of scripture.
However, standing in grace, reading in grace, and approaching the text humbly,
all the while seeking the Spirit’s guidance opens the way for the reader to
draw neat the true message. When the
reader is before the Word in grace and humility, God speaks and is heard. More important than saying what have never
been said, that reader may hear from God what he has never before heard.
[i]
Francis Watson (1997), Text and Truth:
Redefining Biblical Theology, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company (Grand
Rapids), p. 71.
[iii]
Watson, p.72
[iv] I
am intentionally using an issue other than the homosexuality issue for my
example because that issue is wrought with emotional toxicity for the American
church in general and my own church in particular. It is a toxicity the church can handle, but
only carefully.
[v]
Most Calvinists used the term ‘predestination’ incorrectly; they say
‘predestination,’ but they mean ‘predetermined.’
