The Challenge of Understanding Scripture - Part 1

This is part 1 of a 7 part series under the title of, "Why Christians Disagree -Scripture, History, and the Loss of Memory."  

Part 2 will follow shortly.

____________________________

Before proceeding, I should make one thing clear. Nothing that follows should be understood as a criticism of Scripture itself. I affirm without hesitation the words of the Apostle Paul:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, and for training in righteousness" 
(2 Timothy 3:16, NASB).

The question addressed in these essays is not whether Scripture is true, authoritative, or inspired. Christians from a wide variety of traditions affirm those things. The question is how Scripture should be understood and interpreted.

History demonstrates that sincere believers, all claiming loyalty to the same Bible, have often reached very different conclusions. Some of those differences have been minor; others have produced entirely new denominations, movements, and theological systems. The issue, therefore, is not whether Scripture possesses authority. The issue is how that authority is understood, applied, and interpreted.

With that in mind, consider the following illustration.

Why Interpretation Matters

During a period of my career, I was involved in negotiating collective agreements. Even after both parties had reached agreement in principle on every major issue, many additional hours were spent carefully crafting the language of the contract. The goal was simple: to express as precisely as possible what had been agreed upon so that misunderstandings could be avoided later.

Once the contract was finalized and all parties had written copies in hand, one might assume that its meaning would be clear and that disputes would be rare. Experience taught otherwise.

Another part of my work involved dispute resolution and contract interpretation, often through the grievance process. Why was this necessary? Was one side always acting in bad faith? Not at all. In many cases, both parties sincerely believed they were interpreting the agreement correctly. Despite everyone's best efforts to produce clear language, differences in interpretation still arose. Those differences sometimes led to misunderstandings, strained communication, and formal grievances.

What makes this especially interesting is that these disputes occurred only months—or at most a few years—after the contract had been written. The original negotiators were often still available to explain their intent. The historical context was known, the language was contemporary, and the events that shaped the agreement were still fresh in memory.

Yet even when the wording of a contract appears straightforward, experienced negotiators know that understanding the text alone is often not enough. To interpret a disputed clause correctly, one must often ask additional questions:

−       Why was this provision included in the agreement?
−       Which concerns was it intended to address?
−       What circumstances led to its adoption?
−       Who was it written for, and what problem was it designed to solve?

Without that background, it is easy to assign meanings to the words that seem reasonable on the surface but fail to reflect the intent of those who drafted them. In practice, understanding the history behind the agreement is often just as important as understanding the words on the page.

Now consider the challenge of interpreting documents written thousands of years ago in cultures vastly different from our own. Add to that the fact that we are separated from the original authors by language, geography, history, and worldview. Then imagine attempting to settle interpretive disputes while paying little attention to the historical setting in which those documents were written.

This, I believe, helps explain some of the challenges we face when interpreting Scripture. If misunderstandings can arise over modern documents written in our own language and within living memory, it should not surprise us that Christians sometimes reach different conclusions about texts written in the ancient world. The question, therefore, is not whether interpretation matters, but whether we are willing to do the hard work of understanding Scripture within the historical and covenantal context in which it was first given.

If interpretation is difficult even when dealing with modern documents, it should not surprise us that Christians have sometimes disagreed about the meaning of Scripture. The more difficult question is how such disagreements should be resolved.

−       Is every reader equally qualified to determine the meaning of the text?
−       Does history matter?
−       Does the understanding of previous generations have any value? Or should every generation begin again with nothing but the Bible in hand?

I believe each of the above questions must be seriously considered. These questions lie at the heart of one of the most influential ideas to emerge from the Reformation: Sola Scriptura.
_____________________________________

Part 2  "Sola Scriptura and the Problem of Authority" is next. Watch for it.