LECTURE 1
Hansie Wolmarans
"This chapter is broadly based on the first chapter of Borg,. M.. 2002 Reading the Bible Again for the First Time. New York: Harper Collins.
Introduction
Introduction
We bring something to a text which colours our interpretation of it. Let’s
take an example. We ask a group of men and a group of women to punctuate the
following string of words: woman without her
man is nothing. We may find that all the males write, ‘Woman, without her
man, is nothing.’ On the contrary the females may write, ‘Woman! Without her,
man is nothing.’ Factors of gender in this case determine the interpretation.
There are basically two ways of interpreting the
Bible, reading it literally or reading it contextually. The more contextual way
of reading is emerging especially in the main line churches like the
Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans and Catholics—probably because of
a strong tradition of Biblical scholarship. Within Protestantism, there has
always been the stream of liberal Protestantism—taking the Bible seriously, but
not necessarily literally. However many evangelicals stick to a literal
approach. The aim of this talk is to encourage dialogue and understanding.
First, let’s have a look at literalism.
The Literalist Reading Strategy
Those who take the Bible at face value, tend to adhere to the following
assumptions:
1. God,
through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote the Bible using human beings
as instruments. They base their viewpoint on texts like Acts 1:16 where Luke refers
to Psalms 69 and 109 as prophecies about the death of Judas ‘which the Holy
Spirit uttered through the mouth of David.’ 2 Timothy 3:16 says that ‘All
scripture is inspired by God.’
2. The
Bible is therefore regarded as inerrant and infallible. The story of the
creation of the Bible in six days in Genesis is literally true. (‘Soft’
literalists say the cosmos was created in six geological epochs.) Jesus literally
exorcised an evil spirit—not cured a man from psychological disease.
3. The
world vision of the Bible with its reference to heaven and hell, evil spirits
and miracles, its patriarchal concepts applied to God (a male father), society
and family (wives should obey their husbands) therefore hold true (Ephesians 5:22).
This approach has the following consequences for religious life:
1. Women
should not be allowed in the teaching offices of the church in accordance with
1 Timothy 2:12 (they are inferior to men and should therefore not teach).
2. Practicing
homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, to be full members of the church,
or to be ordained into the offices of the church. (Leviticus 18 and 20, Romans
1:26-26)
3. Evolution
as the random progress and development of life forms from simpler life forms is
wrong. Creationism and intelligent design are the biblically correct theories.
4. ‘Higher
criticism’ of the Bible is sinful, like trying to filter out historical data
from what is fictional. If Matthew 27:5 says that Judas hanged himself, and Acts
1:18 says he died because his stomach burst open and his entrails spilled out,
then both descriptions are true. He first hanged himself, then the rope broke
and his body fell down, and burst open.
5. The
focus of religious life is to go to heaven after death.
6. ‘My’
Christianity is the only way to God. Literalists tend to support exclusivism of
other denominations and faiths.
The Contextual Reading Strategy
A more contemporary way of reading the Bible tends to adhere to the
following notions:
1. The
Bible was produced by human beings as a result of their struggling with God.
The ‘Word of God’ is not in the words of the Bible itself, but in the
life-giving effects it has on the lives of people—taking on ‘flesh’.
2. Therefore
the Bible may contain discrepancies and factual errors. In Joshua 10:13 it is
said that the sun stood still and the moon stopped for about a whole day. From
a scientific viewpoint, it is wrong. However, the story may have elements of
truth on another level.
3. For
the Bible to be read responsibly, we should take its context into account. The
inequality of women, slaves and children taken for granted in the Bible cannot
be defended today. So also references to homosexuality which was clearly not
understood as an orientation. The Bible supplies a mythological not scientific
representation of the origins of the cosmos and, therefore, cannot be used as a
scientific textbook. However, theology has something to say about how we
harness the power of the atom. On the other hand, it would be wrong to argue
from evolution that the weak should not be assisted, as it is evolution’s way
of getting rid of bad genes.
This approach has the
following consequences for the religious life:
1. Women
to be treated equally (Gal. 3:28), children’s voices heard and all forms of
slavery condemned.
2. Practicing
homosexuals should be allowed to marry, allowed as full members of the church, and
allowed to be ordained into the offices of the church.
3. Evolution
as the random progress from simpler to complicated life forms is accepted.
4. ‘Higher criticism’ of the Bible is
embraced. Applied to the death of Judas, he probably hanged himself (Matthew
27:5). The version in Acts 1:19 is fictional stemming from a period when
Christians tended to desert because of persecution.
5. The
focus of the religious life is on a relationship with God here and now, which
expresses itself in love, charity and justice in our social relationships.
6. Pluralism is supported: there is
more than one way to God.
Origins of Contextual Bible
Reading
The origins of this new approach to reading the Bible are:
1. Advances
in the Biblical sciences—we know today that the Bible has been revised many
times, and that the stories of Jesus told in the Gospels, reflect a later
situation of the church. We also realise that stories can be inspiring, without
being literally true.
2. Religious
pluralism. We are in daily contact with good people of other faiths as well as
churches and denominations. Are we really right and they wrong?
3. Advances
in scientific knowledge. We regard doubt as a virtue which stimulates advances
in scientific knowledge. Respect for natural laws makes us doubt miracles. We
tend not to ‘believe’ something, unless it is verified by experimentation.
4. Post-modernism.
We realise that our beliefs and vision of the world is relative to our culture
and upbringing. We rediscovered experience
and this led to resurgence in new forms of spirituality. We also realise that
the modernist world-view, with its belief in natural laws, is also relative.
Quantum physics is bringing new insights.
Conclusion
Loving the Bible as the foundational document of our religion and
culture, dealing honestly with its context, taking diversity of culture, gender
and sexuality seriously, accepting the results of scientific inquiry and
embracing the challenges of the twenty first century, the contextual way of
reading the Bible is emerging. For many Christians this is a meaningful way for
the Bible to remain a lamp for their feet and a light on their path.
