There’s always a huge debate about how Scriptures should be read. Some argue for a completely literal reading, that the Bible says exactly what is written – there’s no metaphors, no shades of meaning to be questioned. They hold that the Genesis story of creation tells exactly how the world was made, and take Paul’s words (eg in 1 Timothy 2:12) to mean that women should not have leadership roles in the Church. More liberal interpreters of the Bible may see the creation story as a metaphor explaining that God was behind creation, and may say that Paul’s instructions regarding women were relevant to his context and time, and are not so applicable now.
My thoughts on where to draw the line are pretty well summed up by a particular verse. 2 Timothy 3:16 says “all scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be equipped for every good work”. That is the basis of what I believe, understanding that God has directly influenced the Bible, and it has come from God through men. Because it is penned by fallible humans it may not be perfect and free from human error (this is one of the very debates this post is concerned with), but regardless of this, it first and foremost reflects God in this world.
As for literal or metaphorical interpretation of the Bible, I would say that to a large extent it really doesn’t matter. For many of the issues where this arises the actual difference is not a core matter of faith. We may actively and passionately debate whether the story of creation is metaphorical or literal, but in the end it doesn’t really matter, as it’s still recognising God as creator. Some churches ordain women as ministers and priests and others don’t, but this doesn’t make a huge difference to who God is, or why people believe in Him. Even with contentious issues like homosexuality, regardless of whether it’s right or wrong, I would argue that it really doesn’t change the core belief of a person. The fundamental issue here is that these things are all about how we live out our faith, not whether we have faith. Of course it is important to live out our faith as close to God’s plans as possible, and to constantly seek out what God wants of us by reading what the Bible has to say, but we will all inevitably have mistaken understandings.
However, I also think it’s essential to combine this view with a couple of other ideas. Firstly, I don’t believe the Church should intervene too much in individuals’ lives. Of course the Church has a role in advising the people under its care, but I don’t believe this extends as far as the whole of society conforming to the Church’s ideas. Jesus in no way tried to change the way of the Romans who governed his country, he instead cared for and taught those who came to Him. Thus I believe that it is inappropriate for anyone, fundamentalist, liberal or otherwise, to say that the Bible says this and therefore everyone must live in this way, regardless of faith, or to try to force it on other Christians either. We have a role in advising others around us, but never forcing our readings upon them. Its so easy to criticise others’ interpretations, forgetting that we have similar issues in our own understandings, much like Jesus’ parable of removing the log from our own eye before attending to the splinter in somebody else’s (Luke 6:41-42). There’s a fine line between guiding others to what the Bible has to say in its raw form, and pushing our own readings on them.
And there’s a big difference between doing something according to a certain interpretation of the Bible, and deliberately ignoring certain parts, or twisting meanings. While it’s good to remember that different parts of the Bible had different purposes, and this affects how we should understand their meaning for us today, one thing I can be certain about here is that it is never appropriate to pick and choose bits of the Bible according to your liking. In the Christian faith, the Bible is a single unit. While different readings of the Scriptures may be acceptable, when these readings involve ignoring or twisting the Bible to suit a purpose, that is quite clearly not an honest approach to the Bible. Of course certain verses will be used to support an argument (as I do here), but it’s important that these are used in the context of the whole Bible, not ignoring other verses that suggest other ideas.
Also, I think there will always be different interpretations of many parts of the Bible. Naturally one will be right, and the other wrong in some way or another. But Jesus made quite clear that in the end, faith isn’t about following God’s rules to the letter, but instead to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength… and love your neighbour as yourself” (Mark 12:30-31) Some of us will have interpreted things wrongly. But if we always have the intention of being faithful to God’s word, and following it as far as we are able, then that’s what I believe God asks for. Naturally, faith involves following the Bible as closely as possible, but this is a result of faith, not a prerequisite.
So where do I draw the line? For me, as long as you understand the Bible is the word of God, then the nuances of interpretation matter little in how we live out our faith in God. I realise full well that it is the most debated and controversial book in existence, and that we will all have different opinions, probably even on what I’ve written here. I think that’s ok. But when anyone reads the Bible, I believe they need to approach it with an attitude that if it is believed to be true, then it is the word of God, and must be treated as such. There will still be differences in readings, naturally, but the focus is on recognising it as the word of God, and responding accordingly. As long as people try their hardest to live by the Bible the way God would have them live, then I’d say they’re on the right track.
Some Bible verses to check out on this topic: 2 Timothy 3:14-16; Mark 12:28-34; Hebrews 4:12-13.
2 comments:
Well written article.
"love your neighbour as yourself"
This stretches to all humanity? I was just wondering how you think people who do bad things in God's name fare. Like the Crusades: Church sanctioned, but surely not loving one's neighbour. If they did it with the purest of intentions, doing what they felt expressed their love for God, but this involved murder, surely that still ends badly for them? Perhaps their 'faith' was not true enough for them to respect the Commandments.
Post a Comment