How to take a stand on difficult issues (part 7)

This the final part of the series. The purpose of this series was to help myself and my students and whoever might also read this blog to think about how we talk and debate about difficult issues in the church. This is not something that we always do very well. Some would rather not talk about difficult issues at all. Others enjoy arguing about difficult issues a little too much. I just think that we have to do a better job in this area. There are so many difficult issues that need some sort of principled position from the follower of Jesus. But how do we approach these issues in ways that honor the message of the Gospel? This series has been a small attempt to try and answer this question.

You can read the other posts here.

Part 1: Have I loved the person on the other side ofthis issue?
Part 2: Have I done my exegetical homework?
Part 3: Have I studied the opinions of the church bothpast and present?
Part 4: Have I clearly identified and defined the issue?
Part 5: Have I employed sound critical reasoning skills?
Part 6: Have I taken the time to understand the otherside of this issue?

Part 7: Have I humbled myself (and my tradition) enough to listen?

One of my mentors in ministry was Dr. Robert Lowery at Lincoln Christian Seminary. I had several classes in New Testament studies with Dr. Lowery, and in virtually every class he would drill into his students that the most important principle for biblical interpretation is humility. I teach in a place where it has been standard to say that “context is king.” While I understand the sentiment, context is certainly very important in biblical interpretation, I strongly disagree. Biblical study of any kind must begin with a basic choice. Will I listen to the Word or will I dictate to the Word? Will I submit or won’t I? This is part of what James was getting at in James 1 when he said that we should humbly accept the word planted in us which can save us. Such a humble approach leads us to be doers of the word rather than just hearers.

I can be an expert in the Greek and Hebrew languages, I can study the history and culture of first century Palestine and the Roman world, I can take note of the smallest point of syntax and grammar, I can be sensitive to the distinctiveness in genres and figures of speech, and indeed I can be a master at recognizing the importance of literary context both immediate and canonical – but if I don’t have humility I will continue to see only what I want to see and hear only what I want to hear in the text. Context doesn’t heal the human heart and fix our pride. Lest we become too mechanical and scientific, we should remember Paul’s exhortation in 1 Corinthians 2 that spiritual things are spiritually discerned. This doesn’t happen until we have humbled ourselves and have resolved to listen to the word of God in the text.

Sometimes my students roll their eyes because they hear it so much, but I still carry on Dr. Lowery’s legacy in my classes. The most important and first principle in interpretation is humility. Never is this more important than when it comes time to take a stand on a difficult issue. Too many times Christians will debate from an ideological position rather than a sound exegetical position. There is not an honest attempt to understand or explain an issue. There is only the attempt to win an argument and score points with our constituency. We are sometimes bad about constructing “shibboleth” type tests (Judges 12:5-6) to decide who’s in and who’s out rather than humbly and honestly engaging an issue. “What is your interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2?” “What is your position on inerrancy?” “What do you believe about baptism or the Millennium or glossolalia?” “Do you interpret Revelation literally?” Questions like these are too often not an invitation to a discussion or even a debate. Instead they are traps designed to see if you are safe or orthodox or “one of us.” It’s not really helpful or honest.

When discussing a difficult issue, we must learn to navigate the difficult terrain between rigid dogmatism and non-committal openness. We must choose to stand somewhere on difficult issues. (And some issues are of such importance that we must take a clear and public stand.) We should not be so afraid of being wrong or corrected that we never say anything at all. This is false humility. But at the same time, we should be humble enough to be willing to change or nuance our position over time. A person who has every issue resolved in their own mind either has a very closed and arrogant mind or hasn’t thought enough about the issue.

How to take a stand on difficult issues (part 2)

A couple of weeks ago I began this series of posts about how to take a stand on difficult issues related to scripture and interpretation. You can see my first post here. This is my second guiding principle.

Have I done my exegetical homework?

The belief in the perspicuity of scripture has long been treasured in Protestantism. You could make a case that this doctrine is one of the key convictions that eventually gave birth to the Protestant Reformation. It is the belief in the fundamental clarity of scripture. The Bible is able to be clearly understood by all people (although Luther and especially Calvin would hasten to add that the Holy Spirit must be involved in the process of reading in order to overcome the reader’s sinful nature). The belief in perspicuity moved the locus of authority in interpretation away from sacred tradition and the Church to the individual interpreter. Now Protestants, and especially evangelical Protestants, simply assume that the individual reading scripture on her own is perfectly capable and even expected to understand, meditate upon, and apply that scripture to her life usually within the parameters of a “daily quiet time.”

This isn’t the place to debate the nuances of perspicuity. I accept a certain level of perspicuity as being in line with the original intent of scripture. I believe that scripture is not just for the elites but is for all people in all times and places. However, even champions of the doctrine like Luther clearly believed that not every individual reading of the text was equally correct. There was an essential role for an informed teaching ministry within the community of believers to correct and to train in the proper meaning of scripture.

The reason that I am mentioning this point now is because I have noticed that when it comes to dealing with difficult issues in the text the doctrine of perspicuity is sometimes abused. For instance, take the issue of women’s roles in ministry. This is clearly a difficult issue that the church has been struggling with for years. Exegetically there are a small number of texts in the New Testament that seem to prohibit certain roles for women within the assembly of believers (specifically 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Timothy 2). If we are to ever arrive at a principled position on the role of women in ministry today, these texts have to be studied and “figured out.” There are all sorts of exegetical questions that we have to answer:

1. There are historical-cultural questions to be answered. Was there anything in the specific cultures of ancient Corinth and Ephesus that necessitated Paul’s restrictions on women in those churches? Further, was Paul articulating a general principle to be applied in every one of his churches (and therefore should also be applied in the same way in all of our churches) or was this simply a specific contextualization of a general principle (even the two major texts in question don’t agree on every detail)?
2. There are important contextual questions to be answered. How do these restrictions fit within the context of the letters of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy? What was going on in these churches that would cause Paul to talk in this way? How do these restrictions fit within the broader context of the New Testament? For instance, what are we to make of Paul “tolerating” the teaching ministry of Priscilla and other prophetesses in Acts? What was Jesus’ own understanding of women disciples? How do these texts relate to the general principle of equality outlined by Paul in Galatians 3?
3. There are important grammatical and semantic questions to be answered. What did Paul mean by “authority” or “head” or even “submissiveness?”
4. There are important questions of application as well. Why apply 1 Cor. 14 literally in all churches today but not 1 Cor. 11 which talks about head covering for women? Why permit women to lead worship through song or prayer if they are “not permitted to speak?” At what point are women allowed to teach in the church? Where did we get the idea that it was ok for them to teach boys until the sixth grade but not after that point (as some churches practice)? Is it ok for women to “teach” but not “preach” (even though the word for “preach” is nowhere used by Paul but “teach” is in 1 Tim. 2)? We have to own up to the fact that our application of these texts is laughably inconsistent.  

I bring up these questions not because I’m arguing for a certain position on the issue. I bring them up to illustrate a point. Difficult issues are difficult for a reason. There are a lot of exegetical knots to untie. But when these difficulties are brought up some will respond with arguments about the perspicuity of scripture. “I don’t need a class on studying the Bible to teach me how to read what scripture has clearly said.” In other words, the perspicuity of scripture means that I don’t really have to study it or listen to the perspective of someone who has been trained in how to properly study it. It’s a pre-critical literalism (which somewhat ironically is tied more to the interpreter’s tradition than his actual reading of the text). “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.” But that doesn’t really settle it. There is something missing in that cliché. It should rightly be “The Bible says it. I understand it. I believe it. That settles it…for now.” You aren’t reading scripture well if you aren’t taking the time to actually struggle with it, study it, and understand it. And you aren’t reading scripture well if, after reading the text once or twice, you assume that you have it mastered well enough that you never have to really study it again. Faithful Bible reading requires diligent study.

If we are to take a stand on a difficult issue like women’s roles in ministry (or dozens of other similar issues), we must commit ourselves to understanding the word by doing the difficult work of exegesis.

Metaphor vs. Cliche

So, I recently had a five hour layover in Dallas. For some reason I started thinking about how much I can't stand it when Christians (including myself) speaking in cliches. I guess long layovers in airports are good for random thoughts. Long layovers in airports are also good for writing those random thoughts down. These thoughts might be good. They might be bad. Sitting in a coffee shop in an airport, they seemed brilliant - but probably the same type of brilliance that every college student enjoys while writing a research paper at three in the morning only to wake up the next day and realize that there's a reason why papers shouldn't be written at three in the morning. Regardless, I thought I'd share. (I've not edited for typos or anything, so...be nice.)

Easy clichés are utterly useless as a strategy for effectively communicating anything. Standing opposite of clichés are metaphors. Metaphors are expansive in their meaning. A good metaphor put into effective use can open up an exciting realm of possible meanings. Simply say that the Lord is a good Shepherd and our imaginations run wild with the implications. God is resolutely concerned for me and us – his sheep, his flock. And he puts that concern to work in manifold ways limited only by our imagination and time. This is the beauty of metaphor – to say so much with such an economy of words. Metaphor is absolutely necessary for communication. That is, if a person desires to communicate anything of substance, of meaning, of mystery. Those unhappy souls who insist on strict literalism or who remain blindly skeptical of anything that lies beyond pure scientific “fact” have doomed themselves to a life free from the painful joys of love, the mysterious attraction that exists between men and great bodies of water, or even the happy nostalgia that accompanies a night at the ballpark. Abandon metaphor and God won’t be far behind. Metaphors acknowledge our limitations, our humanness – that there are certain things that go beyond our ability to neatly or literally try to explain them. Certainly this must be true about a sovereign God. To say that we can only approach God through the veil of metaphor is not to say that God somehow doesn’t exist in reality – as if empiricism can tell us more than a fraction about reality. It is also not to say that God has not acted historically in a meaningful way, specifically through his Son. No, it is an acknowledgment that our understanding of God must always be imaginative. We cannot domesticate God with lazy literalism or stale systems of theology. Even the historical actions of God are understood through pictures and metaphors. You need to look no further than the cup of the Eucharist for proof. This is certainly why music and lyrics have always been an important part of religious expression – especially in the Judeo-Christian heritage – a heritage that insists on both the otherness and the nearness of God.


But clichés. If metaphors are expansive in meaning, clichés constrict meaning. Clichés actually manage to say less than their literal meaning. Both clichés and metaphor are succinct, but their effect is completely different. Metaphors advance conversation. Metaphors can successfully remain relevant and meaningful across the centuries and across the spectrum of cultures. Think about the number of cultures around the world from mountain villages in northern Europe to rice plantations in the Philippines who have had their imaginations captured by the notion that their sins may be made white as snow. Clichés are just as succinct, but rather than inspiring imaginative conversation they actually suffocate conversation. Rather than being disclosing truth, clichés actually obscure it.

Maybe an illustration will help. Clichés are the trade language of professional athletes and coaches everywhere. I often wonder if somewhere in the class schedule of the average division one athlete there is a course labeled: LA 110 – Sport Speak: A course offered specifically for the current or aspiring athlete. This course will instruct students in all of the latest techniques and approaches to speaking the language of sport. Upon the completion of this course, the student will be equipped to speak while saying absolutely nothing of substance. Final exams will consist in a press conference in front of real, professional journalists. If you are a sports fan, you have at some point been frustrated by the uselessness of the sports cliché. A critical game has just concluded. Your appetite for the game isn’t satisfied by the game alone. You want to know more. You want a behind-the-scenes explanation of exactly what went right or (what is most often the case for my teams) wrong. A reporter in the front row asks what sounds to you like a very good question – a question that you might have asked. “What exactly happened at the end of the third quarter that allowed you to start working your way back from that 10-point deficit? Was it a change in the defense or was it something that you saw the other team doing?” This is the point where all the hours in Sports Speak training pay off – and if it is a professional athlete they are almost admirably fluent in the language. (Perhaps the only profession more accomplished in the art of the cliché is the professional politician.) The original question is lost in an avalanche of sports cliché. All Sports Speak will hit on one or usually a combination of these themes: 1) a reference to something that their coach said to them which is supposed to sound inspiring but to those of us at home sounds incredibly obvious, 2) some sort of reference to the need for perseverance using vaguely militaristic terms like fighting or battling, 3) a mention of the importance of teamwork, 4) a compliment to the other team for their effort using some of the same terms from number 2 above – a compliment that usually manages to sound both empty and patronizing at the same time, 5) finally, we may be treated to the observation that this was in fact just one game in the midst of a season full of games that can only be played one at a time. Usually, this is preceded by the reminder that such a wise observation can only be properly made “at the end of the day.”

Maybe it is because the athlete wants to protect his team’s secrets. Maybe it is because he doesn’t want to sound ungracious in victory or defeat. Or maybe (more likely) he’s just being lazy and doesn’t feel like offering a thoughtful response. Regardless of the reason, the desired effect is almost always achieved unless the reporters that day happen to be unusually aggressive or ornery. The cliché has effectively killed the conversation. The cliché leaves no room for further imagination or explanation. Everything has been said. And nothing has been said. A cliché is a linguistic mirage. It appears at first to offer something of substance and meaning, but upon closer examination it is empty and frustrating. And often misleading.

Unfortunately too many of us have turned into that professional athlete/politician who is only capable or desirous to speak in clichéd sound bites when it comes to God. Rather than capturing the imagination or inspiring conversation we stifle both with cheap religious sounding clichés.

Christian cliché runs the spectrum from 1) the ridiculous and cheesy – pretty much every Christian t-shirt or church sign you’ve ever seen. Seriously, how does it help anyone to point out that there is “no stop, drop, or roll in Hell.” Has this ever worked as an evangelistic strategy? 2) the question-begging – “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.” “Whenever God shuts a door, He opens a window.” Or my personal favorite – “It’s not a religion. It’s a relationship.” If you’ve been around Christians for very long at all you have heard one or all of these types of statements. They are intended to be declarative, “clinching” statements, but they are actually very misleading in their supposed simplicity. 3) the out-of-context” – Who hasn’t heard a Christian turn verses like Philippians 4:13 or Matthew 18:20 or Proverbs 22:6 into cheap clichés by taking them out of context and using them for his own immediate needs?

When I speak as a Christian, I will have to learn to speak in the language of metaphor if I am going to speak rightly of God (or of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, eschatology, salvation, etc.) – admittedly not an easy language to learn, and, like any language, is spoken better by some than others. Some metaphors are silly. Some are misleading or easily misunderstood. Many are not even biblical in their allusion and reflect more our contemporary desires for God than the biblical testimony of God. Nevertheless, we must learn to employ metaphor and well if we desire to speak of God (or to God for that matter).

More Nationalistic Hermeneutics

I know that I can always count on the "local Bible store in the mall" for some wonderful Christian tchotchkes and some fantastic examples of the Bible handled poorly. My issues with this banner are: 1) It totally ignores the context and the historical situation of Numbers 10. 2) This exercise of prooftexting is done in the service of an unapologetically American nationalistic theology. 3) It reduces the message of scripture down to mere sloganism - as if the purpose of scripture was to supply us with endless witty sayings for our T-shirts, church signs, and decorative wall art. 4) If a cult group did this with scripture we would be justifyably indignant and the "local Bible store in the mall" would never dream of selling it.

Trayvon Martin and the media's tribalistic hermeneutic

(This brief video clip shows both the edited and the unedited versions of the 911 call of George Zimmerman on the night that Trayvon Martin was shot and killed. The producer of the NBC segment has recently been fired as a result.)

Hermeneutics from everyday life. It is getting more and more difficult to get to the truth of any matter due to the rampant politicization of every event (be it tragic or sublime). The tribalistic hermeneutic drives the media's (and therefore also our own) interpretation and understanding of virtually everything. There is no truth. Only spin. So Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman become useful pawns to support whatever narrative we would like to protect. (It needs mentioning that both the left and the right are equally guilty of this.)

And of course what is true of the Trayvon Martin case is also increasingly true of biblical hermeneutics in a tribalistic society as well. We choose or interpret the data in ways that support our narrative. Interpretations are politicized and weaponized against those outside of our tribe. What gets lost in the process? The voice of the Other speaking (often very uncomfortable and often very liberating) truth into our lives and into our communities.

Messy Hermeneutics

Interpretation is not an exact science. Understanding--be it of God, works of art, ourselves, or others--is both messier and more provisional than explanations that work with causal laws. Why should this be so? Three reasons: 1) because what we're trying to understand is often singular and unique, 2) because meaning is a matter of seeing the parts in relation to larger wholes of which finite human interpreters have only partial glimpses, and 3) because interpreters often have vested interests for seeing things in one way rather than another and lack the requisite virtues to see things as they really are coram Deo (before God).

Kevin Vanhoozer, Everyday Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 36

Check the Context

Hillel's Rules

Hillel’s Rules of Interpretation (From Gary Hall, Lincoln Christian Seminary)
1. A meaning applied to a lesser case will certainly apply to a more important case. (Qal wahomer)
2. Verbal analogy from one verse to another. The same consideration can be given to same words in different verses. (Gezerah shawah)
3. Building up a family from a single text. The same phrase found in several texts allows the consideration given to it in one place to apply to all. (Binyan ab mikathub ‘ehad)
4. Building up a family from two texts. A principle derived from relating two passages together can be applied to others. (Binyan ab mishene kethubim)
5. The general and the particular. A general rule may be restricted in application by another verse, or conversely, a particular rule may be extended to a general principle. (Kelal upherat)
6. A difficulty in one text may be solved by comparing it with another that is similar. (Kayoze bo bemaqom ‘aher)
7. A meaning may be established by its context. (Dabar halarned me’inyano)

Context

It takes the whole Bible to read any part of the Bible.

Eugene Peterson, Eat This Book (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 48.