Tag Archives: Interpretation

LOST in Determinism

Posted on by
13

1st in the LOST in Theology series.

I was fascinated with the Free-Will/Predestination debate as a young Christian, but now I see it as silly and trivial. (I conflate a lot of ideas here intentionally, namely Determinism, Fatalism, Predeterminism, and Predestination.  Wiki them.  I will use ‘fate’ and ‘determinism’ interchangeably for brevity’s sake, except when I talk about ‘Social Determinism’.) But the debate between Free Will and Determinism is popular, used in many pop cultural medium, specifically in our case, LOST.  In short, it’s a highly marketable theme.

Locke is the biggest proponent of ‘fate’:

“We were brought here for a purpose, for a reason, all of us. Each one of us was brought here for a reason.”

Locke’s fate helps open the hatch.  Locke’s destiny blows up the submarine.  Locke returns to the mainland to convince the Oceanic 6 that it is their fate to return to the island.  In the end, within the story, it appears that Locke was correct, for Jacob had indeed ‘fated’ them all to the island.  But herein lies our problem, the gap between story and life.  Stories have ends, but in life, ‘the end’ is a relative and moveable marker, somewhat determined by one’s religious views.  So while fate is internally verifiable within a narrative, fate is scientifically unverifiable, because there is no last word in life.  None of us know to what extent our actions are fated or determined, nor to what extent we have free-will.

Free Will too is problematic, and a bit misunderstood.  One is free to will as one pleases, but this is not the same as the freedom to choose, nor to act.  And while one may be free to will, how one’s preferences are determined is up for debate, and certainly they are not created in a vacuum within an individual.  And at the moment of choice, choices are manipulated and limited by forces external to the individual.  Locke can will to remain on the island and will to have others stay with him.  But when he meets the group of survivors by the radio tower, he cannot simply choose those options.  The whole community of survivors is there limiting him from carrying out his will (although he does kill Naomi in his strongest enactment of his free will), and this limitation is a form of social determinism, a category of invisible social forces that press back against the will of the individual, evidenced by advertising, herding, market engineering, etc. So, it appears that neither Free Will nor Fate/Determinism have much to do with the lived experience of everyday life.   

A better way to think, in my opinion, is this: if a scientifically unverifiable faith claim is stated (i.e. ‘We were brought here for a purpose), then its function (rhetorical force) is far more important than the so-called “truth” of the statement.  Locke vs. Jack, Fate vs. Free Will: what is important is not which side is correct or more truthful, but that the competing claims force us to choose.  The survivors are consistently forced to choose between Locke and Jack, it drives the early narrative.  So forget about the Fate/Free Will debate, and ask yourself what each side is fighting for: there you will find the real argument.

The irony is this though: in making competing claims between Fate and Free Will, and forcing individuals to choose, one is actually participating in a form of persuasion that is akin to social determinism.  The competing claims are part of a social framework that limits the choices of an individual.  Was Locke meant to remain on the island–then why did he leave?  Was Peter destined to deny Jesus?  Judas to betray him?  Pilate to kill him?  What are the real motivations that drive those questions?

Questions that we are fated to find definitive answers for?

Destiny calls.

History is Relevant, Historicity Should Not Be:

Posted on by
2

A few thoughts on yesterday’s post concerning mythology and history…

I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility of the historicity of the Bible–that the Bible is historically accurate in its entirety.  This is efficient.  Yet, I doubt every Christian is willing to accept the possibility of the opposite–that the Bible is historically inaccurate.  If this is the case, I say that wanting the Bible to be historical does not make it historical, and such a faith claim is efficient and biased.  If, however, one can accept both possibilities, then we are left with two options.  First, we can weigh the evidence, and try to determine which parts are and which parts are not historical.  Much time and effort in and out of scholarship has been given to this task, and Bultmann critiques these efforts, since he claims there is not enough evidence to say either way.  The second option, then, is to disregard the historicity of the Bible.  Worry not about the historical actions of its characters.

Instead, know as well as one can about the history and culture surrounding the composition of the various Scriptures.  In this way, one contextualizes the language used to tell the stories, helping the modern reader access (and reproduce) the meaning.  This is of course, problematic, because the interpretation of history, even recent history, is known to be biased, and spun (Fox News, MSNBC).  But still, it is the best we have, and we make do what we have.  More later, but I just wanted to make the distinction clear on the relevance of history versus historicity.

Talk amongst yourselves…

The Meaning of a Bible

Posted on by
3

"Neon Bible"

I have argued here before that all forms of communication are full of arbitrary signs.  Arbitrary signs, symbols, identities, whatever, are the basic tools of human existence and especially of human communication.  This is not to say that there is no meaning in life, but on the contrary.  Meaning is a production.  When one attempts to communicate, one produces meaning.  But equally, the attempt at understanding an attempt to communicate is also a production of meaning.  The interpreter at her/his best attempts to produce a meaning that is closest to the perceived meaning of the original communicator.  But never does a text, like the Bible, have any meaning inside of it.  Its reader produces meaning and lays it on top of the text.

The Cosmic Totality of Satan the Serpent

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been thinking about the nature of theological interpretation of the Bible, ontological vs. existential, inspired by several posts over at Storied Theology.  Here are some of my thoughts in context:

One of the strongest push-backs I’ve ever had during a Bible study, was when I asked the question: “Was the serpent in the Garden of Eden Satan?” I had a few who started to turn to Genesis to see what it said. One of those said to me, “Well, I believe it’s Satan.” I asked why, and after no response, I offered up a suggestion. Revelation 12.9 reads:

And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world- he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

The human mind is a curious thing, which can take contextually embedded existential statements and understand them as ontological truths. In fact, this is one of the greatest barriers in biblical studies, that the reader reads a verse or two and accepts it as an ontological truth for all times. So when my student read the Revelation passage, there was no question that the Snake of Genesis was Satan of the Apocalypse. More on the Bible in a minute, but I want to make two observations about the human mind’s quick jump to ontology (the nature of being or something like that).

The first is that such a move must be for efficiency of thought. If one had to contemplate the complexity of every aspect of life in every moment, there would be no time for anything else. In some ways it’s like Bonhoeffer’s Deus Ex Machina to which Peter Rollins refers in this short video. But we do not simply fill in the gaps, for the human mind is capable of constructing ontological truths, like God having no beginning nor end, without comprehending what they mean. This is actually an amazing tribute to the human mind that even I have yet to grasp.

But the second point I make is that when such a thought is constructed and so abstract, we often fetischize it. Recently I am reading a novel, A Brief Life, by the Uruguayan master, Onetti. I offer this excerpt:

“Let’s look for a woman,” Stein proposed.

“No, I’m leaving.”

“But not just any woman. A woman who can anticipate our fantasy and show us that reality surpasses it, who can give us cosmic totality—till the next one comes along—with only three holes and ten tentacles.”

“I’m going to bed,” I insisted.

Not sure about the “three holes and ten tentacles,” but this woman is often like the Bible, which (in our minds) often anticipates our desired theology and we hope that reality will surpass it, and that its words will give us cosmic totality. In other words, the verses in the Bible will give us some understanding or great connection to the ontological truths of the cosmos that is beyond its words. So when one reads an allusion in Revelation to Satan being the Ancient Snake, it is unimaginable that it could be otherwise. However, in the Onetti excerpt, there is no woman, there is only the idea of the possibility of a woman who can bring cosmic totality. Does even such a woman exist? Can anyone even tell me what “cosmic totality” means? Imagining something that might exist might also be the fulfillment of one’s total cosmic needs.

This perhaps applies even more directly to Revelation 17-18, where Rome is compared to a seducing Harlot. But really, the student I had was so determined that the Snake was Satan, just as he had learned in Sunday School. He had fetischized this ‘truth’ until it became so crucial the the Snake must be Satan, it was as if the foundation of the world depended on it. If it weren’t for my explanation, he would have never known about Revelation 12.9. And upon hearing my reading of Revelation 12.9, he gave no consideration to its context. The verse stood alone, a proof-text of an abstract ontological truth.

As a bible scholar, I am convinced that Revelation is a critique of Rome. In chapter 12, it is unclear who the dragon is, but the dragon is once referred to as that “Ancient Serpent.” Most likely this is a reference to the Genesis story, but this is slightly inconclusive. The “theology” of Satan also changes over history, from prosecutor (Job) to worker of evil (NT). But in 2nd Temple Jewish literature, there is a somewhat distinct genre of literature we call, Apocalyptic Literature (Revelation, the Enochs, 2 Baruch, mostly extrabiblical). A frequent characteristic of this literature is that it uses spiritual terms and names to describe the evil behind historical worldly powers. This is where we have to ask ourselves, is this a literary device describing an existential situation, or is this an ontological description of a spiritual reality.

Given the ease with which oppressed people can demonize their oppressive powers (or how anyone can demonize leaders with whom they disagree), it seems more likely that the spiritual language of Revelation and other apocalypses are representations of the existential situation. And I would argue that this is the case for most of the Bible. Nearly all of the descriptions of the deep truths are products and constructs of the writer’s situation. Revelation 12.9 does not describe the actual nature of the Serpent in Genesis 3, but rather is a pointed accusation at Roman leadership, perhaps even the emperor himself.

This does not need to lead us to the conclusion that the Bible is merely literature, for the Bible is the book for Christians. Nor does it need to lead us totally away from Divine Inspiration, although it may lead us away from inerrancy. Instead, it is a call to re-prioritize how we interpret the Bible, giving care to the oppressed people who produced it. Understand that not every statement is ontological, a theological doctrine of the spiritual world, a box in which to put our god and our christ. But every verse is an opportunity, to look into the hearts of real historical humans, and see how they encountered God and Christ in their existential contexts.

Economics and Interpretation

Posted on by
Reply

In the first chapter of this book, Peter Oakes describes three relationships economics can have with New Testament Interpretation.

1) Economics can provide an overall analytical framework for interpretation.

2) The aim of the interpretation of a text may be to gather economic evidence.

3) Economic evidence may be a resource that is used for interpretation.

In his critique of the first relationship, Oakes says, “When primary interpretative questions posed to a text are about whose economic interests it serves and how it serves them, then, inevitably the primary results of the interpretation will be economic an political.” (14)

Of course this is true, but it is hardly a critique.  Look at the recent economic crisis, however, and you will see many politically driven interpretations of why we had a debt-ceiling crisis or why the U.S. was downgraded.  But those were political events.  The Bible for the longest time has been viewed through theological and dogmatic lenses.  What this kind of critique ought to say is that all religious events in ancient times (and now) are at the same time political and economic events.  When Jesus critiques the Temple, it is not simply because they don’t understand the “religious” meaning of Jesus being the Messiah.  The Temple in Jerusalem was both the political center as well as the state treasury in a lop-sided economy occupied by Rome and Herod.  Therefore, this kind of interpretation (#1) is important to say that all things religious were also political and economic.  We can argue later about who benefited from certain things, but we cannot separate these into easy categories.

Bible Study Made Difficult, Pt. III

Posted on by
Reply

Ceci N'est Pas Une Bible

Having read today this article on why not to read the Bible literally, I feel urged to finish this series and move onto something new.  It’s been in the back of my head for a while, but I’ve refused to tackle it because it is the end and beginning of all Bible studies.  It’s a bit large for a blog, but I will run over the highlights of my point and hope that conversations can begin here.

In Part I, we realized how important it was to do a close reading of the Bible and how our Church traditions and doctrines slant our reading of the Bible by asking slanted questions.  In Part II, we looked at how an original Bible does not exist, and how scholars have to sift through old manuscripts to determine which is the earlier one.  This gives way to some questions about God’s authorship of the Bible.

I would like to continue along that line today.  To ask the question, “What is the Bible’s relationship to God?” is to ask a theological question.  This is not something Bible scholars are really trained to do—this is why we have theologians.  If you want to hear the debates, find a systematic theologian.  I am more interested again in making a few practical observations and offering a few practical solutions for Bible study.

First, the nature of language creates and structures the world in our minds, yet every language system is incomplete and full of holes.  I think the more one studies different languages, the more one can see what each language lacks.  Therefore, I am really unconvinced by a narrative that says that there is one book, authored by God, that is written in a human language.  I would be more inclined to hear theories of inspiration that begins with God, and evolves through humans into language, simply because I can’t imagine that God would “write” a universal book with an incomplete language system. (Some of this is covered in old blogs I reposted today, Pt. I and Pt. II.  Also a more academic summary here.)

There is more here for theologians to discuss, and I’m sure “Bible”-believers will turn their head.  But in the spirit of humility, one really ought to study the history of the theories of inspiration just within Christianity and see the variety that has existed.  Most of us are products of those debates and of the “conclusions” our respective denominations came to from those debates.  While the truth in interpretation is out there, it often is unavailable to us, which is why we so often rely on faith.

So, with the deconstruction of the modern Bible study behind us, allow me some helpful tips:

    1. Read the biggest section possible. Each writer has his own emphasis.
    2. Private Bible reading should be preparation for public Bible reading.  The Bible was made for public reading.
    3. There’s nothing wrong with getting help.  From pastors, academics, non-believers.
    4. Help is always biased.  Amen.
    5. If you find the message you want to find, be skeptical.

Bible Study Made Difficult Pt.1

Aside

2

Reading an Ancient text is difficult, as it should be.  Displaced by time, space, culture, ethnicity, politics, economics, etc.  These next three blogs will hopefully point out things that must be considered when reading the Bible.  ”But what if God wrote the Bible for all people in all times,” you might ask.  I will deal with this very question in Pt.3.  For now, let’s start with a Bible passage:

Luke 17.34-37

34 I tell you, in that night there will be two in one bed. One will be taken and the other left. 35 There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left.” 37 And they said to him, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.” 

In a recent Bible study that I led for undergrads at the University of Chicago, I mocked what I portrayed as modern Bible study questions.  These questions are often leading questions, with the answers already in mind.  And the answers that are already in mind have theological statements that are already decided prior to reading.  I’m not sure about you, but that seems an ingenious way to read a book that is supposed to teach us about God.

I posed these two questions to the students:

1) What is this passage talking about?

2) How does this passage teach us about how we see this world?

Their answers were predictable, and I could have written them beforehand (But this was because I set them up for it.  They really are pretty sharp;)

1) This passage is about the rapture… when Jesus returns he will come and take us up to heaven and leave the rest behind.

2) This passage teaches us that this world is temporary and we should focus on the things of heaven. “Store up your treasures…etc.”

And then I asked them to do a close read.  Ask yourselves questions that you might not know the answer to.  Ask yourself a question that opens up the text.  I told them that I could ask them one question that could change their whole perspective on this verse: “Who gets taken, the righteous or the unrighteous?” (Question courtesy of Prof. Barbara Rossing)

This is a question that doesn’t get answered in Luke, or in the other Gospels (at least to my knowledge).  And if the answer is that the unrighteous get taken, then what does that mean for the second question?  Perhaps, that we must make this world a better place or take care of the environment, etc.  The questions we ask of the text, often determine our answers.  The challenge is to find relevant questions that are difficult to answer or unanswerable.  Unfortunately, most modern Bible studies do not do this, instead they are micro-doctrines, directing an unsuspecting reader towards some form of orthodoxy.

Next time, we will begin with a question that nearly everybody missed:  Where is v.36?  Did you miss it?