What Is Right? Part 7: "Primum non nocere / First, do no harm," Humility and Responsibility in the Use of the Bible
One of the oldest surviving New Testament papyri
dated approx. 200 AD
I write with the assumption, in my Christian faith, that the Bible is authoritative, that it is given to us by God and as such, it can be trusted for guidance in the issues that it addresses, and the core message is timeless. (1) As an authoritative source, it can easily be misused, and sadly, often this is the case. However, it has come to us as a revelation from God, it is available to anyone who chooses to read it, and there is individual freedom in interpreting the message. Due to the nature of the documents, we depend on scholars to facilitate greater opportunity for more accurate interpretation, to understand the meaning of the Bible in relation to the times in which it was written. Some of the issues that require deeper consideration ...
Respect the distance of history and culture -
It is difficult for us to grasp the historical distance between our times and the times of the distant past. Consider that a mere 200 years ago in US history, we had no motorized personal transportation, no electricity, no electric appliances or electronic communication - no "social media" (except newspapers), and the long fight against the institution of American slavery was just beginning. Devotees of Scripture debated and fought against each other on this ethical issue. Consider even more so the great cultural distance between our time and cultures in which the biblical writings were compiled - generally two to four millennia in the past. Cultural institutions and the routine activities of life have changed dramatically - family life, work, agriculture, trade, education, forms of worship, forms of leadership, of government, social institutions, warfare and conquest - the ebb and flow of change with the passing centuries. To discern the timeless core ethical and spiritual truths of Scripture requires that we exercise great diligence to understand these ancient cultures, and to exercise great humility when we realize the limits of our understanding.(2)
Respect the distance of translation -
Just to focus on the New Testament, in that time and place were spoken languages of Aramaic, Greek and Latin, and writings in Aramaic and primarily Greek, transcribed, passed down and compiled to the present form of the New Testament. The discipline of "text criticism" interprets the origin and reliability of the various documents and fragments to arrive at what we consider to be the actual form of the New Testament writings. The task of translation is supported by a great volume of serious scholarship that has been ongoing for centuries. Study aids available in study Bibles along with reasonably accessible Greek and Hebrew language references make it possible to explore the available expertise on questions of meaning. These tools provide explanation that bring this scholarship to bear upon our reading experience and inform us of some of the difficulties, as well as the best understanding of original language meanings. Translation is not straightforward, however, and word meanings are often subject to debate, especially for New Testament Greek words that are rarely used, of which there are many. Translations into common spoken languages did not become common until the 17th century (the Authorized Version - "King James" - dates to 1611). Our most respected "modern" translations date from the middle of the 20th century, and newer versions continue to come out.
The intellectual context of modern rationalism -
In light of the challenges presented by the distance of history and culture, of language and translation, the need for intellectual humility in the application of the Bible to contemporary life is strongly opposed by the values of the intellectual context that accompanied the development of protestant theology - namely, the intellectual project of modernity and the drive for complete, certain, and infallible systems of knowledge. The project of modern philosophy began in the middle of the 17th century and continued on this path for about 300 years, during which time evangelicalism as a complete theological / doctrinal system came to fruition. The most influential theologies and doctrines are those that are systematic and comprehensive - modernity placed into our intellectual mindset the belief in and the hunger for certain knowledge and an all-encompassing worldview. The fruit of this intellectual partnership is a strong ethos against ambiguity and openness in any matter that touches upon Christian doctrine. Those of us brought up in this intellectual system have an internalized aversion to leaving any essential question unanswered or open for debate. The reach of the intellectual / doctrinal system is exhaustive, leaving no stone unturned, and supposedly providing one correct biblical answer to every significant moral question. Perhaps this intrinsic drive, adopted from the now rejected intellectual project of modernity, helps explain the unending multiplication of doctrines and doctrinal systems and denominations that have continued to emerge. Many parts of the evangelical church have never come to terms with the reality of the failure of the intellectual project of modernity, or learned the lessons of that failure - but many faith communities have understood this. (3)
Understanding the limits of our knowledge and the unfortunate baggage of our intellectual history should help us exercise more humility in the application of our faith to the ethical questions our culture. With humility and responsibility, let us first do no harm.
It is worth observing, that a lot of the growth and energy evident in current movements of Christian faith center not around doctrine but around ministry and mission, engagement in the community, along with vibrant and diverse expressions of corporate praise worship, and celebration ... There is hope that we may not altogether collapse under the weight of our inherited need for doctrinal perfection, and that going forward we may learn healthy ways to shed these burdens and walk in greater freedom in the ways of Jesus Christ ...
Notes
(1) Evangelicals - please do not take this as a formal expression of a doctrine of biblical authority. I am merely stating in common language that in my faith, I accept the Bible as uniquely authoritative and reliable in informing me about God - part of my faith confession.
(2) Cultural distance and the historical circumstances that conditioned the content of biblical writings becomes more significant in cases in which the biblical material was actually a document written to a specific audience (such as the letters in the second half of the New Testament), in contrast, for example, to the narrative parts of the New Testament that describe the activities and the teachings of Jesus.
(3) If while reading this you are perplexed, or otherwise find yourself in complete disagreement with my passing reference to the failure of the epistemological project of modernity, please dig deeper on this issue. It is beyond my scope here to elaborate. Note that I am not here advocating a thoroughgoing relativism or denying that we can have well founded confidence in a wide range of our most important fundamental beliefs. Rather, I am here espousing a strong dose of humility with respect the the sense of all encompassing demonstrably true worldview systems that aspire to press into every area knowledge without qualification.
Image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament