Discover more from Lutheran Confessions
Sometimes when people come to our congregation they’ll say, “You know I was part of this general spiritual community and it was fine, but I just kept needing a bit more Jesus.” I think this is their recognition that although as a community we are radically open to traditions not our own (I just indicated this in my last post), and practice interfaith engagement with many of them (from Hindu to Buddhist to Jewish to Muslim), in the end we are able to practice this engagement gently and faithfully because we are grounded in our own tradition, which really does maintain “a bit more Jesus.”
The way most Christian communities keep a bit more Jesus is by keeping a bit more Bible. In other words, although some people may read Harry Potter as a sacred text, or The Odyssey as a sacred text; and although even we in our own tradition will engage the Bible with many of the same tools we are willing to apply to the reading of great works like those; in the end, we still do believe there is something special about the Bible, and we believe this because we believe in some ways it uniquely helps us encounter Jesus.
This is to say, although some progressive Christians may disagree with me on this point, I have a rather high view of the Bible. It’s the main text we read and interpret in worship, it’s the source and norm of who we are as a community of faith, and it is, as Luther liked to say, “the Bible is the cradle in which Christ is lain.”
It’s important to make the distinction, though, that the Bible isn’t Christ. the Bible is the cradle. This is the key hermeneutical insight that distinguishes a liberal reading of Scripture from a fundamentalist one.
How we interpret our sacred Scriptures (hermeneutics) matters quite a lot. I served a congregation in Wisconsin for six years that owned two lovely and historic church buildings. The Norwegian Lutherans had split in the mid-1890s over what was at the time a huge issue—single vs. double predestination. As a result of the split, two beautiful rural churches were built two hundred yards apart from each other on adjacent sides of the cemetery.
Prior to the predestination controversy, Norwegian Lutherans had been split over whether or not the Bible condoned slavery. One group believed since it is not expressly condemned, it is condoned. Another group believed the overall arc of Scripture indicated condemnation of slavery. Each group read the same Scriptures, but in different ways, and came to fundamentally different conclusions based on exactly the same text.
At the root of both of these controversies were differing interpretive strategies. One approach assumes that the text, and our interpretation of the text, are essentially the same thing. The other approach cultivates a greater awareness that there might actually be a much wider chasm between the text and our interpretation of the text.
Simmering underneath almost all controversies—whether they are religious or political ones—are differences in how we interpret, and these two ways of interpreting—I am painting with a somewhat broad brush here—often become the sides of our bipartisan fallings out.
The fancy word for all of this is hermeneutics, the science of interpretive studies. Hermeneutics recognizes that how we interpret matters. Even more importantly, it recognizes that our lack of awareness of differing approaches to interpretation underlines and reinforces many of our cultural and religious differences.
I like to think there is a rather simple way to illustrate the two ways of holding Scripture. The first way is to grip the text tightly. In this approach, the interpreter believes they understand and grasp the text well. How they interpret it is exactly what the text means. This group of readers tends to say things like, “You know as well as I do that the Bible says…” or “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.”
The other way to hold Scripture is to hold it lightly. In this approach, the interpreter seeks an understanding of the text, but honors the fact that there are many stages of interpretation between what the text originally says and what the interpreter comes to understand as the meaning of the text. At the very least, with most texts, there are at least these stages—the author, the text, the translation of the text, the reading of the text, the reader, and the reader’s ultimate application of the text as it relates to life in the world.
Those are a lot of stages, and because the process is so much more complicated than is often recognized, the interpreter who holds Scripture lightly opts to submit to the truth they hope they are discovering in the text without assuming that they have come to the final and settled single and best interpretation. To hold a text lightly is to keep our eyes open to this complex and beautiful interpretive process.
Here is an example. Consider the Psalms. These beautiful songs and prayers can and have been read any number of ways. One of my personal favorite approaches is to read the psalms as if we are joining Christ in his prayer. There is some indication this is an appropriate Christian reading of the psalms, because Christ himself often quotes the psalms (My God, My God, why have you forsaken me—Psalm 22), and the New Testament quotes the psalms regularly as well.
As a Christian reader of the psalms, it makes quite a lot of sense to read the psalms in this way. In fact, it aids praying passages that seem inappropriate to pray otherwise. Joining Christ in Christ’s prayer gives us confidence, and brings to greater recognition the community of prayer we join whenever we pray them.
However, I know the Psalms are Scripture we share with other faiths. Reading the Psalms with communities of faith other than my own, I need a different set of tools, another way of reading the psalms, that still makes sense as shared song to God. I can keep my Christological reading of the Scripture for my own devotion and prayer. I can even share this Christological reading of the psalms with my neighbors of other faiths. But I can only do so lightly, gently, palm up and hand open, entrusting my own way of reading Scripture to the wider community of readers of the text.
When I read the Bible in this way, I honestly believe it makes my reading of Christian Scripture more attractive. I try to bring this same hermeneutic to bear in every conversation I have with others about Scripture. When we look at a text together, if you say to me, “The Bible obviously says… (insert here any number of hot button topics we currently argue about),” I am going to say, “Let’s see if it really says that. What’s the wider context? What kinds of cultural assumptions do we bring to the text? Is this a loving interpretation of the text, even if you think it is the ‘right’ interpretation of the text?”
Think about the different ways you have seen people present something of beauty to you. When they grasp it, Gollum-like, calling it precious and clasping it as their own, do you find it desirable? Do you really think people love and trust the things they squeeze and grasp tightly?
Or if they bring something of beauty to you, gently and lovingly, like a newly discovered kitten, does another and better string play on your heart? Can you see their care of that beautiful thing, their life committed to it, in their gentle open hands?
I hold the Scriptures lightly for the same reason I hold the hands of my family members lightly. Because I love them.
—
For further reading, check out John Caputo’s Hermeneutics: Fact and Interpretation In the Age of Information.
Subscribe to Lutheran Confessions
Reflections from a progressive Lutheran pastor in the South.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” -Inigo Montoya
Thanks for that insight, Clint! So clear...so iniviting...so non-threatening!