A hermeneutic of suspicion

Family Ties

18 October 2017|Viewpoints|Volume 21 Issue 20

Melissa Miller, Columnist

Melissa-Miller-2016-pic2smaller

In a previous Family Ties column on sexual ethics (June 19, 2017), I wondered, “Where does the Bible help us [in this regard]? And where is it limited?” As I wrote, I imagined some readers might share my questions, while others would be puzzled, even disturbed, by them. Like many of you, I imbibed Paul’s teaching to Timothy that “all Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness” (II Timothy 3:16).

Of course, Paul, writing in the first century A.D., was referring to the Hebrew Scriptures. The Christian Scriptures were not compiled and set into canon until the third century, or perhaps the fifth century, depending on which history one is following. Unity on Scripture was shaken up, along with many other things, by the Reformation, as Protestants omitted a number of books included by Roman Catholics.

Biblical history is full of much deliberation and debate. Those of us who value Scripture ought to become familiar with the fierce struggles that took place in its shaping, to determine what was sacred and should be included, and what was peripheral or heretical and therefore omitted.

Still we claim them as our holy writings. We trust the God-breath that worked through human hands and motivations to produce them and to guide us today, as they have countless others in the past. I persist and delight in engagement with Scripture, beginning most days with a psalm followed by a gospel passage. Such a rhythm grounds my little life in God’s unfathomable love, as intimate as breath, as vast as the ocean.

Questions persist. I ponder the opinion of my atheist friend, who thinks that an ancient book is woefully inadequate as a guide to ethics today. Part of me disagrees strongly, although I am not one to argue with an unbeliever. Part of me wants to point to Jesus, whose self-giving love ethic is magnificently compelling, timeless and exactly the model needed for the world in any age. How can the teachings of Jesus not inspire, guide and disturb anyone who considers them?

There is another part of me that understands my friend’s scepticism, what I call a hermeneutic of suspicion. My hermeneutic—how I interpret Scripture—has been shaped in many ways, including by my seminary studies. From feminist and liberation scholars, I acquired permission to approach Scripture with respectful critique. What does it mean that much of the Old Testament was written down by royal scribes, possibly during the years of Israel’s monarchy, possibly when Israel was in exile?

It is reasonable to assume that the writers were male and privileged, given gender roles, subsistence living conditions and scarcity of literary skills at the time. I know as a writer that there are many ways to tell a story. Our perspectives and our location in a society influence the story we tell or even the stories we think are worth telling. A hermeneutic of suspicion invites me to look at the Bible with curious eyes, asking, “Who is benefitting from the story being told this way? Who is being suppressed or disadvantaged?”

These questions have led me to a broadened appreciation for the Bible’s powerful message, particularly when interpreted by those who are weak, oppressed and marginalized. The God who brought liberation to the Hebrew slaves is still liberating and redeeming today. The God who broke open exclusionary divisions between Jews and Greeks is still inviting all peoples into the one universal family.

Perhaps suspicion is too strong a word for some lovers of the Bible. Perhaps caution or curiosity is more fitting, and can lead us to new insights.

Melissa Miller has a passion for helping people develop healthy, vibrant relationships with God, self and others.

Tags:

, , ,

Share this article:

Related articles:

14 Responses to “A hermeneutic of suspicion”

  1. Steve Hoeppner Avatar
    Steve Hoeppner

    The Modern Idol of Doubt
    With all due respect Melissa, I’m wondering where in the holy scriptures we find a divine directive (even an invitation) to approach the Bible with a ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’? Quite the opposite, the scriptures compel us to come to God and His inspired word full of faith and belief. Failing to do so, as the scriptures themselves say, results in us receiving nothing from God. If anything, teaching God’s people to doubt the sure word of God sounds very much like what Satan continually offers humanity.

    To be frank, Feminist and Liberation theologies are what you should have approached with suspicion; they are merely modern heresies deliberately introduced into western seminaries to deceive future church leaders into accepting an impotent gospel. Is there any surprise that now, several decades removed from the 1960s when much of this ‘theology’ reached its peak, that we have a church body that knows virtually nothing of the power of Jesus’ resurrection and is powerless to stand against the headwinds of a Godless secular culture? Do we not see that never-ending discussions about social ethics form the crux of our understanding of the Kingdom of God as a result, rather than Holy Spirit power (“For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power.” I Cor 4.20)?

    Folks: suspicion, skepticism and doubt are not Godly virtues. They are modern idols that will eventually bring about God’s judgment (see Jude 5).

    “If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. But when you ask, you must believe and NOT DOUBT, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do.” (James 1.5-8, emphasis mine)

  2. Mary Derksen Avatar
    Mary Derksen

    The Modern Idol of Doubt
    Thank you, Steve Hoeppner. You said it well.

  3. John H Neufeld Avatar
    John H Neufeld

    A Hermeneutic of Suspicion
    I want to affirm your “respectful critique” approach to Scripture and your use of the expression, “hermeneutic of suspicion.” Everyone who reads the Bible carefully will notice that there are different convictions and understandings of faith and discipleship in Scripture.

    I will share only one example (but there are many). When we read Deut. 23:1-8 and Nehemiah 13:1-3 we get the clear message that certain outsiders and foreigners are to be excluded from worship in Israel. This was understood to be the Word of the Lord by ancient Israel at that time. When we read Isaiah 55:7 we read as follows, “Let no foreigner say I am excluded.” Two inspired Bible texts are exclusionary but the other inspired text is inclusionary. Somehow this has to be taken seriously and interpreted.

    If the Bible were a constitution or a rule book then every part must be consistent with every other part. Rather, the Bible seems to be the library of an ongoing conversation in which various viewpoints are preserved as inspired text. I certainly agree that all Scripture is inspired and useful for teaching, but not all parts are equally useful for us. We have long held the conviction that Scripture is to be interpreted in the light of Christ. Taking these texts-in-tension seriously we must seek to know whether Jesus has any light to shed on the matter. And He does. The cleansing of the temple text in Mark 11:15-19 contains a quote from Isaiah, “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.” This is not exclusionary; it is inclusionary! Jesus chooses the viewpoint of Isaiah over against the attitude found in Deuteronomy and Nehemiah. We have guidance here about responsible Christian interpretation of Scripture, according to the mind of Christ.

    What seems clear to me is that what the Bible says in one place may be in tension with what is taught in another. Accepting this means practicing a hermeneutic of respectful critique and finding that one part of inspired Scripture is of less importance than another part of inspired Scripture.

    1. Steve Hoeppner Avatar
      Steve Hoeppner

      No Tension Whatsoever
      John, perhaps unknowingly you have vividly illustrated my point about the danger of a ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’. Please allow to explain.

      The Deuteronomy & Nehemiah passages you quote are perfectly in sync with one another, reflecting Israel’s call to faithful obedience to the Torah. In the Law Israel was to be separate and holy unto the Lord. Isaiah, however, is a prophetic book and the verse you quote is taken from a portion of that book that speaks about the future glory of Israel when the Lord (whom we know to be Messiah Jesus) comes to earth to finally establish God’s eternal rule. Of course there will be no ‘foreigners’ excluded on that day because when Jesus returns all his enemies will be made his footstool (Ps. 110)! In other words, all foreigners who have joined themselves to Jesus (see Isaiah 56.3) will be part of the Abrahamic family of faith (aka true Israel), and as such, could never be excluded. The other ‘foreigners’ who refuse to be joined to Jesus will be destroyed (something Isaiah depicts graphically).

      Here’s my point… when a person comes to the Bible with skepticism, suspicion or unbelief (a ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ or ‘respectful critique’) he or she is vulnerable to misunderstanding and misapplying the scriptures, just as you have done. There is no tension, nor contradiction in these three passages – only continuity, beauty and promise.

      When scripture initially appears to contradict it is our duty as followers of Jesus not to give ourselves over to doubt, but to pray and allow the Holy Spirit to open our eyes to what we cannot immediately apprehend, believing in faith that a good God would not speak in confusing, contradictory ways. There is much yet to be discovered in the scriptures but we will never uncover it if we approach them with doubt and unbelief. The Bible itself testifies to that reality. Let’s be honest and admit that a ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ and ‘respectful critique’ is merely unbelief wrapped in euphemism.

  4. John H Neufeld Avatar
    John H Neufeld

    Hermeneutic of suspicion
    To continue the conversation with Steve I want to do two things: one, ask a question and two, give another example of real diversity in Scripture.

    My question arises in relation to Steve’s seeming inability to accept diversity in the Bible. He states, “a good God would not speak in confusing, contradictory ways.” This is an assumption that was not discovered in Scripture but brought to the text as a prior presupposition. Somewhere he got the idea that a good God would not speak in confusing or contradictory ways and a good God’s Bible would not behave that way. But it does and it challenges us to come to grips with the fact that the Lord dared to inspire frail and fallible human beings to tell His story in culturally appropriate and ancient ways. The Lord permitted his followers to express their understandings and beliefs in stumbling and preliminary ways, growing out of their experiences and reflections. This is sometimes perplexing to us, but often finds resolution in the clearest revelation we have of God in Jesus.

    My example begins in Deut 28:1-14 where we find the expression “abound in prosperity”, “bless you in all you undertakings”, and “you shall be only at the top and not at the bottom” – this is one of the key texts of the prosperity gospel in our time. But this is given a quite different interpretation in the book of Job. Job is introduced as “blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil”. According to Dt 28 Job should not have had to suffer, but he suffered terribly! Job’s friends argued on the basis of the assumptions of Dt 28 and told him he must have sinned. He rejected that and in the end God affirmed him.

    What happens with this tension in Jesus’s time? It is raised twice, John 9 and Luke 13:1-5. The question in the first century was “who sinned” to cause blindness and were the worst sinners killed in the tower of Siloam incident. Jesus clearly states, neither his parents or he sinned to cause blindness and no, they were not worse sinners who were killed in the accident.

    To me this is inspired and creative dialogue within Scripture. The dialogue is rooted in real diversity of opinion; not harmonized but allowed to be part of the biblical narrative for our benefit. Let’s be honest and admit that this is rooted not in unbelief but in careful reading.

    1. Steve Hoeppner Avatar
      Steve Hoeppner

      Suspicion & unbelief
      John, I am astounded that you seem to think that the concept of God’s goodness is simply my own presupposition. As Christians, the goodness of God is a cornerstone of our faith (“Why do you call Me good? Jesus replied, No one is good except God alone.” (Mk 10.18) It strikes me that this is the root of your error with regard to hermeneutics. It’s not about allowing diversity into the discussion, but rather about whether to allow heresy! To that point, I believe you have yet again supported my thesis about the dangers of a hermeneutic of suspicion with your reference to Job.

      For example, if Job was to employ a post-modern ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ the Bible would record that once confronted with undeserved calamity Job was forced to conclude that God’s word to humanity was simply too unpleasant, confusing, contradictory and/or culturally irrelevant for his situation. As such he would be compelled to massage its meaning until becoming more palatable to his specific cultural context.

      Is this what Job did? No, quite the opposite. The Bible demonstrates that precisely because Job believed in the inherent goodness and justice of God he refused to (a) accept the easy theological answers of his friends and (b) throw in the towel by cursing God (as his wife advised). Instead Job persisted for an answer as to how this could be. In fact, thematically the book ponders the question about whether Job will retain his faith in a good and just God in the absence of answers, or simply give in to unbelief. When he does finally come face to face with God he quickly concedes that from his limited human perspective there are some big questions only God can answer. He concludes with a posture of humility saying, “Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.” (Job 42.3)

      Job’s entire story begins and ends with faith and humility toward God. Within the uncertainty and cruel crises of life Job emerges steadfast in faith, not suspicious of God’s word as many Mennonites now prescribe. In the face of difficult biblical questions, our approach should be like Job’s: presuming the goodness of God, knowing that God’s salvation will come according to His timing, not ours.

      In light of God’s bold response to Job (“Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!” Job 40.2), I ask similarly: Who exactly do we think we are to question Almighty God about the way He has chosen to speak to humanity? Only modern man and woman would be so arrogant to do so by audaciously rewriting his commands regarding human sexuality.

  5. Matthew Froese Avatar
    Matthew Froese

    Plenty of tension – and that’s OK
    Steve, I appreciate the confidence and certainty you have found in your faith, but you may want to consider that the insistence that there is no tension whatsoever in Scripture stands somewhat apart from our Confession of Faith. Take a look at note 4 under article 22 on peace: “There is no simple explanation for the practice of war in the Old Testament.” We are a peace church, and we acknowledge that the Biblical call to peace exists in tension within Scripture. There are plenty of people who have tried to explain away that tension in various ways – and perhaps you’ve found an explanation that you find satisfactory – but our tradition doesn’t demand that we do so.

  6. Steve Hoeppner Avatar
    Steve Hoeppner

    Tension
    Matthew, I think you’ve misconstrued what I am saying. I think if you read carefully what I wrote you’ll see that I’m not saying there is no tension within the Bible. Rather, I was referring to the alleged tension John saw in the 3 passages to which he referred. My point is that many of these so-called contradictions can easily be resolved by approaching the bible with faith, humility and prayer; not suspicion as Melissa invites us. In those cases where tension yet remains we must lean upon the goodness of God and trust that any confusion and lack of understanding is due to our fallibility, not God’s. (After all, how many times was Israel not able to see the stunningly clear and precise Messianic prophecies in the Psalms and Prophets, which we now see were obviously placed there by the Holy Spirit?)

    A proper, faith-filled hermeneutic is crucial for us as Christians because of how it establishes our faith, while a non-biblical approach relying upon post-modern relativism only leads to more doubt, unbelief and, inevitably, apostasy. Sadly, this is where our denomination has now arrived after employing an unchecked ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’.

  7. John H Neufeld Avatar
    John H Neufeld

    Suspicion and belief
    Steve, please reconsider your last post which seems to be based on a quick reading of what I wrote. Not only have you misread my statement but you have drawn conclusions based on it, arguing that this is the root of my hermeneutical error and that I am on the way to allowing heresy.

    I did not question the goodness of God at all, but I did question your statement, “a good God would not speak in confusing, contradictory ways.” That seems to be your presupposition; you have determined what a good God could or could not do in and through the Bible and are not willing to accept obvious diversity within it. This has nothing to do with allowing heresy.

    My reference to Job had a different focus as well. Careful reading and reflection leads me to see the book of Job as expressing a challenge to the assumptions expressed in Deut. 28. That is the issue that Jesus addressed in John 9 and Luke 13. I was illustrating how diversity of belief and understanding is being handled within Scripture. I did not impose this diversity nor Jesus’s response to it on the text. These texts invite us to wrestle with what the Lord is trying to reveal to us and to struggle with the reality the inspired text presents.

  8. Steve Hoeppner Avatar
    Steve Hoeppner

    Suspicion & unbelief
    I believe I understand quite well what you are saying. Where we differ significantly is HOW God speaks through scripture. It very much seems you are distressed by the idea that God’s inherent goodness can provide a person with great confidence to understand what God is saying in the Bible. Are you sure you don’t have a blind spot here? After all, you appear to have leaped to endorse Melissa’s hermeneutic, which also claims to be able to (quite confidently, I might add) interpret God’s activity in human history. This has less to do with ‘diversity’ (another vague/euphemistic term, I’m afraid) and more to do with where one casts his or her lots hermeneutically.

    Feminist theology for example, as Melissa points out, refuses to read the bible at face value because the writers (allegedly) are “male and privileged.” This raises a very serious issue, because if what she and other feminists say is true then one must conclude that the Holy Spirit was powerless to transmit God’s word to humanity without error when faced off against human patriarchy. Or how about Liberation theology, which believes the primary mover of history is human socio-economic forces? Here, too, the very Spirit through whom all creation was spoken into being(!) AND raised Jesus from the dead(!) was apparently thwarted in His efforts to speak God’s word accurately by corrupt human institutions. Do we seriously want to go down that road, theologically?

    Yet, John, you seem willing to accept such a premise, while scorning the orthodox assertion that God’s goodness enables us to know his will with remarkable clarity. Are you sure you haven’t simply bought into the oxymoronic post-modern idea that there is no such thing as meta-narrative (i.e. the Bible)? I submit that the premise of Melissa’s ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ outlined above is fundamentally flawed. A basic rule of argumentation is that a flawed premise (no matter how sincere the argument or arguer) inevitably leads to a faulty conclusion. In this case the stakes are tremendously high because we’re talking about how to interpret scripture and thus live our lives before a Holy God. Any hermeneutic that is inherently humanistic in its foundation, like feminist & liberationist theology, is purely dangerous and idolatrous.

    Job seemed to understand that amidst theological tension the rule of thumb is to always side with God and trust that the tension will one day be resolved, either in this life or on resurrection day when we “know fully, just as we are fully known.” This is precisely why Job, in the midst of his time of greatest questioning comforted himself with a confession of faith, not doubt: “I know that my redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth.” (Job 19.25)

    A hermeneutic of suspicion can never give us that kind of confidence in times of trial because Job’s words are about trust in God’s character; not the pseudo-spiritual language of doubt, skepticism and unbelief.

  9. John H Neufeld Avatar
    John H Neufeld

    Suspicion and curiosity
    Well Steve, we have been around the block a few times now and I’m not sure we understand each other better than before or not. E.g. I have difficulty with your claim “that you understand quite well what I am saying” since you did not respond to the main point of what I said, namely, that I questioned your assumption that God would not speak in confusing, contradictory ways.” My question remains, on what basis have you determined how God might or might not choose to reveal himself to human beings?

    Secondly, you have taken strong exception to the phrase I used (as well as Melissa), “a hermeneutic of doubt.” I looked through her article and notice that she recognizes that suspicion may be too strong a word for some lovers of the Bible. She went so far as to suggest “caution” or “curiosity” as perhaps being more fitting. I like the term curiosity.

    When I read the two creation accounts in Genesis I am struck by the fact that there are two distinct sequences there and the names by which God is referred to are not the same in Genesis 1 and 2. So, I wonder about this. Could there have been two writers at work here, at two different times in history?

    When I read the parable of the lost sons in Luke 15 and notice that the father “ran” to meet his younger son, I am curious and I learned a helpful cultural fact from Kenneth Bailey (Poet and Peasant), that it was a shameful thing for an adult to run in that culture. This sheds additional light on the impact of this ancient story on its first hearers.

    In one passage God is said to be the reason for Israel’s census, but in another text about the same census, Satan is given credit for the census. When I read such things I’m curious. Perhaps it is that the one text written about 150 years later than the first and by a different writer and with a different purpose helps us to understand the difference. On top of that Israel considered both of these narratives to be inspired by God! Do you ever experiences like this?

    Thirdly, I certainly agree with you, “Where we differ significantly is HOW God speaks through Scripture.” This is a very important point. I hope we agree that God did not dictate what ancient writers wrote; that God inspired individuals to write and later to gather and to edit the record of the faith and culture of Israel which later found its surprise ending in the coming of Jesus. The Bible is God’s Word to the people of God, but it is entirely written by humans who were situated in particular times, cultures and predicaments and used a range of literary genres. I find the story in Nehemiah 8 very instructive. The people asked for the reading of the Torah and the text says “they read with interpretation; they gave the sense so that the people understood the reading.” Nehemiah 8:8. This understanding resulted in rejoicing among the people and a celebrative feast (BBQ?).

    Understanding the Bible involves the hard work of asking questions, wondering about things, trying to figure out what the writers intended and what the first hearers may have understood. At the same time it also involves trusting the same Spirit who has inspired and guided in the past will be at work in our hearts and minds so that we understand what the ancient word may be saying to us in our time and situation.

    1. Steve Hoeppner Avatar
      Steve Hoeppner

      Suspicion & curiosity
      John, I will give this one final try as well to demonstrate that I have in fact addressed your ongoing question. The other points you list I will not dispute, for there certainly is much complexity in the scriptures. That is evident, and beautiful, showing the brilliance of the Mind which spoke them into being through human authors.

      Nevertheless, my issue with Melissa’s article is the premise that the Bible somehow cannot be trusted. This is dangerous and heretical for many reasons. Your question about the basis upon which God has determined to reveal Himself to humans is troubling to me, however, since it hints at a lack of understanding on your part regarding basic Christian doctrine.

      If you read 1 Cor 2 you will see that Paul speaks directly to the absurdity of the “wisdom of this world” in comparison to the wisdom of God. He points out that the Lord has purposely hidden His wisdom from the proud and arrogant, instead revealing it exclusively through the Holy Spirit to those who humble themselves under Jesus’ leadership. In other words, those who continue to puff themselves up with intellectual pride and man-made philosophies (i.e. Feminism & Marxism) will never be able to see The Truth, because the Spirit will hide it from them. Having one’s eyes opened to the truth is what it means to be “Born from above/the Spirit” as Jesus explained to Nicodemus (Jn 3).

      So, to answer your question about how it is that I (or anyone else) can claim to know how to approach interpreting the scriptures… well, John, it’s actually ‘Christianity 101′, so to speak. As Paul points out, “we have the mind of Christ.” (1 Cor 2.16) In other words, those of us who submit to Jesus and become born from above in the Spirit, we literally have access to Jesus’ mind, for He lives directly within us. For us the Holy Spirit is not some abstract concept but a personal force who practically shows up in dreams, visions, words of knowledge, the ‘still small voice’, etc. He is not an ‘it’, showing us that spending time arguing that He is female is as futile as it is just plain ignorant. For me, when I have difficulty understanding a passage that I need to preach on I will seek God and often that night will be given a dream that interprets it for me.

      Does this mean that we who have the mind of Christ are instantly infallible? No, absolutely not, but to the degree we humbly submit to Jesus’ lordship in our lives we have the ability to discern the scriptures. This is what it means to be a disciple of Jesus: walking in the power of the Spirit, just like Jesus.

      The fact that many in our denomination are currently teaching others to blatantly disregard the Bible and to embrace immorality is proof-positive that many of our people have not been born of the Holy Spirit. In fact they go through CMU & AMBS without ever personally experiencing or surrendering to the Spirit, and as a result become the false shepherds warned about in Jude and 2 Peter 2. They are those who the Holy Spirit foretold would come “in the last days”, who are worldly-minded and devoid of the Spirit. What makes this so desperate is that both authors (Jude & Peter) warn that such people will be condemned to eternal damnation for their refusal to submit to God’s word.

      So, Canadian Mennonite, you go on ahead and allow regular contributors to openly question and mock the Bible and, by extension, teach others to do likewise; but make no mistake there is a day of reckoning coming for you, and anyone else, who does. How do I know this? The same Spirit who says so in the Bible has personally confirmed it with and many others. That’s what it means to have the mind of Christ, and Jesus paid a massive price to offer it to any willng to receive it on His terms.

  10. John H Neufeld Avatar
    John H Neufeld

    Suspicion and curiosity
    When I read your last submission, Steve, my first reaction was simply to let it go at that, but the thought returned to me that your approach really ought to be challenged. In fact, I recalled words from Acts 15 how early believers had “much debate” and “no small dissension” about matters of faith and discipleship. I was encouraged by this biblical precedent and decided to do a bit of exegesis. I found expressions in your writing that seem puzzling and strange to me. I wondered about the underlying assumptions that inform your opinion. I also sensed a touch of judgmentalism regarding any one who doesn’t agree with you rather than curiosity which might have raised the question, I wonder how John arrived at his conclusion. Have I overlooked something?

    I am delighted that you recognize the complexity of Scripture but I question the expression “the Mind which spoke them into being through human authors.” Did the Mind of God really speak them into being? This seems to be leaning strongly in the direction that God dictated Scripture to human authors. From the evidence in the Bible it seems clear that this was not the case. Human authors rooted in their culture and time expressed their truth using available literary genres of their time. The biblical creation stories bear remarkable similarities to the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation myth. Biblical writers made use of literary forms available to them and revised them with their own understandings about God and the relation of God to creation. God entrusted the writing of the creation accounts to inspired human beings. I am baffled by your claim that “God’s Mind spoke them into being.”

    I am also struck by your “knowing how to approach interpreting Scripture” and that it’s actually ‘Christianity 101’. In other words, its elementary, basic. You seem absolutely certain about this. I certainly agree that the basic gospel message of the Bible is accessible to all, but I cannot agree with you that the Bible is simple to understand and interpret correctly. How do we understand the geneaologies of the Old Testament? I have found the careful work of Denis Lamoureux of St. Joseph’s College in Edmonton to be very helpful. Take the Psalmist’s word that the Lord is patient and slow to anger, yet Uzzah in 1 Samuel did not get to benefit from the patience of the Lord. He was struck down instantly. I suggested that understanding the Bible is hard work and requires diligence and commitment, but you insist instead on seeking God in prayer about understanding a passage and “often I will be given a dream that interprets it for me.”

    You come close to claiming infallibilty over time (not instantly infallible) and make the statement that to the degree we humbly submit to Jesus’ Lordship we have the ability to discern the scriptures. Yes, we do grow in our understanding of Jesus’ Lordship but that is not the way in which we acquire the ability to discern scriptures. I have found Acts 8 to be instructive. The Ethiopian is reading the scroll of Isaiah and Phillip asks, “Do you understand what you are reading?” His response, “How can I unless someone guide me?” Phillip did not suggest he pray about it; he painstakingly explained, interpreted the passage so he got the message.

    The details of background that Jesus assumed in the parable of the waiting Father are not accessible through prayer, but through hard work, research, that sheds light on the ancient parable.

    I believe you have misread Melissa when you conclude “the Bible somehow cannot be trusted” and you label it “dangerous and heretical for many reasons.” Neither Melissa nor I are teaching others to blatantly disregard the Bible. We are committed to taking the Bible with utmost seriousness and paying close attention to background, context, literary form, etc. Taking the Bible seriously does not mean we insist on taking every passage literally, but that we explore each passage literalily as well.

    I am disappointed in your attitude that comes through your writing (maybe I’ve misunderstood, but I don’t think so). You make some broad accusations against others, yet Paul the inspired writer cautioned his readers in Romans 14:1-15:7 about such matters. Specifically, he names two attitudes – those who disagree are not to despise those who may understand things a bit more openly and whose discipleship doesn’t measure up; and those who disagree are not to pass judgment on a brothers or sister’s understanding of faith and discipleship. Yet you are doing exactly this, on the basis of the Spirit having “personally confirmed it with you” and many others.

    Paul urges his readers to be firmly convinced in their own minds and he definitely cautions against despising or passing judgment on those who differ.

    I urge you to open yourself to the insights that others have gained about the Bible as a result of the Spirit’s work in their lives and their own study.

  11. Steve Hoeppner Avatar
    Steve Hoeppner

    Suspicion & unbelief
    John, I was no longer going to respond to this thread except for the incredible irony in your post. I will not address most of what you’ve said because it’s clear to me you’re perceiving something very different from what I am saying, and you are consistently in error in your conclusions.

    What I will point out is that this thread has essentially ended up going full circle with you misquoting scripture. I’m curious, have you actually read the book of Romans? It wouldn’t seem so; because if you had you would know that in the passage you quoted Paul is speaking specifically about the issue of dietary laws, and is part of a larger discussion about how Christ fulfills the Law through love. This passage has absolutely nothing to do with whether we are to be suspicious of the Bible. If, on the other hand, you’re quoting Romans to make a point about (me) judging error in the church, well perhaps you need to read what Paul also says to the Corinthians: “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.” (1 Cor 5.12-13a)

    In any case, if you back up to Romans 12 & 13, you’ll see that Paul’s appeal to the Roman church is for them to come into the light of God’s truth (His word, which includes the Bible) and forsake sinful practices, including sexual immorality. John, do you realize that by quoting Romans you’ve actually made the point that a plain reading of the Bible is authoritative, and that it can be trusted, for example, to denounce homosexuality as sin?

    What you appear to have done (again) is to proof-text to support your prior suppositions and conclusions about the Bible’s trustworthiness, resulting in a misinterpretation and misapplication of a fairly straightforward passage.

    If this is what you mean by opening oneself ‘to the insights others have gained about the Bible,’ I’m afraid that’s a very dubious proposition. That is where we need to direct our suspicion.

Leave a Reply

Follow Us