What the Bible "Says"

Last year I attended a debate at ISU between an atheist and an evangelical. The debate was entertaining, and after I asked a question of both respondents, another person in the audience began to argue with me. This individual claimed that the biblical message was obvious, and he was furious with the atheist and me for twisting God’s word. “Do you really think that the message of the Bible is that clear,” I asked him. “Yes!” he responded, raising his voice to the point where others asked us to carry on our conversation outside.

I have to confess that I could not resist a little debate so I motioned to my theological opponent to step outside. He eagerly followed me with his well-thumbed Bible in hand. We began by turning to Matthew 16, the chapter where the Apostle Peter names Jesus as the messiah and Jesus then gives him the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the ability to “bind and loose sins.” “This passage,” I noted, “is cited by Roman Catholics to justify their claim that Peter, later the first bishop of Rome, was the ‘rock’ upon which the church was built and had unique authority. This passage is the scriptural basis for the modern day papacy, and you can read the Latin translation in gold above the high altar in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. So, is the entire Catholic Church wrong?” “Without a doubt,” he replied. “How do you justify that?” I asked. He stared at me and began to explain how Jesus did not want a pope. “So,” I responded, “you know what was going through Jesus’ head? That is pretty remarkable.”

Then we turned to Acts 4, a passage that describes how the earliest church shared their possessions in common. When certain members of the church withheld some of their possessions, God struck them down dead. I raised an eyebrow at him. “Possessions in common? Sounds an awful lot like Communism to me. Does your church share its material goods in common?” “No,” he said, getting even angrier with me. “That passage related to the church then, but does not apply to churches now.” I nodded at him, “So, if I understand you correctly, certain things of the early church, like holding possessions in common, were only for that time period. But other things, like barring women from the ministry, are universal?” “Yes!” he replied. At this point I could not help myself. “And by reading the passage, you know which commands are universal and which are time specific? Impressive.”

My discussion with this man carried on for quite a bit longer, and, unsurprisingly, neither of us changed our position. But, our conversation brought up a key question for Christian churches today, “How do you weigh one interpretation of the Bible against another?” Some people try to discern the intention of the author, something that is intellectually attractive but practically impossible. We have no way of getting inside the head of an author or a character in the narrative. Another way is to use historical context to try and determine what the author might have intended, but this puts us in the position of determining what aspects of the biblical world are universal and which are time specific. Another approach examines where the text fits into the larger narrative of the author of that particular biblical book. Still another approach tries to weigh views in one biblical book against another. The early church relied heavily on allegory, especially in interpreting the Hebrew Bible. Our options are extensive.

In the 1960s there arose a movement in South America, known as Liberation Theology. Liberation Theologians argued that Christians should embrace a “preferential option for the poor.” They eschewed the academic elitism of modern historical and literary criticism and insisted that the Bible should be interpreted by the poor and the marginalized in light of their life situation. It was only in reference to current human situations, specifically the situation of the oppressed, that the Bible remained a living text and true to its origins.

What is the correct interpretation of the Bible? It depends on whom you ask. Christianity today, in Ames and around the world, has a stunning diversity of beliefs. This diversity emerges as faithful Christians wrestle with what the Bible means for them. If we are going to find any common ground and room for collective action, we must first begin by admitting that biblical interpretation is complex and a process that takes place within a community of faith. While constructive engagement with others is crucial to the interpretive process, we must admit that faithful people can disagree without being heretics.