Wanting to know God.

For several years, I volunteered and worked for a church within the charismatic tradition. Since this church was a non-denominational (or “inter-denominational) church, they had very few written doctrines to which they were required to adhere. Rather, the focus for us was to know God, through the Bible, through each other, and through meeting God in our private and corporate spiritual lives. In fact, I still adhere to this principle—the purpose of my spiritual life is not to get the correct doctrine, but to know Christ to the best of my ability.

My experience with this tradition was the beginning of a new world for me, because I realized that I did not have to adhere to my previous theological biases unless I chose to. So in my life I began to question many of my biases, and soon I began to question the Bible. The quest that drove my questioning: to know God. Somewhere along this journey, I asked myself the question:

Does the Bible help me to know God or hinder me in knowing God?

This is an extremely important question to ask, but I doubt if any of us will find proof of an answer that we can rationally explain to another. But what I discovered was that my theological presuppositions could hinder me in knowing God, especially when I brought them to a reading of the Bible. I needed to be more frank with myself when I came to the text, because my primary goal was not to build a fence around the Bible, nor a fortress around the theology that I’d been taught before. My goal was to know God in spite of my previous interpretations of theologies and the Bible.

Can this way of thinking lead to me believing anything about God that I want? Yes, it can. That is the danger. But asking questions about whether something helps or hinders in knowing God is of the utmost importance. I am caught in the middle trying to discern the truth and completely making up the truth to support my own desires. I believe though, that if everyone looks at one’s self, they would find that they are in the same boat as I, despite having never asked such questions.

I find the only way to combat my desires for truth and to crawl towards the light of Truth is to not go it alone. It is important to search for truth with others, with The Other, within a community. Pray together, worship together, read the Bible together and be careful not to let previously learned things hinder the newly encountered things. Care enough to listen to the others in our communities (and even other communities who think differently!), perhaps enlightening us with new perspectives on theology and the Bible. I doubt anyone of us can say we have the market on God or that we know all truth. So keeping in mind that we all have more to learn, let us learn together, open to other parts of the Truth we have not yet experienced. In other words, leave room for knowing more about God, even if it means questioning hard things, like the Bible.

"I love you; you are the only one for me."

A good interpreter is like a copy machine: the better the copy machine the better the replication of information. Put a document on the copier and one expects the same document to come out. But everyone knows that if you make a copy of a copy, then the quality is diminished—the information is not replicated exactly the same as the original. Is this because the copier didn’t work well the second time. No. The copier didn’t make a %100 exact replica the first time, but the differences were too small to notice the first time around. The second time, however, highlighted the small, incremental deviants of the copy process. The same problem exists in the old game of “telephone,” where one person passes a “phrase” to another by whispering in their ear, until the whole “phrase” has been passed through one’s group. The final phrase is almost always different than the original phrase. So it is with interpreting individuals and their determination of meaning.

In the previous two posts, we have seen: 1) Meaning is partially determined by the original event (context) of the text; and 2) A communal interpretation is complex and partially determined through biases, limitations, and power structures. However, my characterizations were over-simplified. We have missed a step. We have gone from initial event to a communal interpretation without considering the mediating interpreter—the professors in the last post. In this post, I will show that a great burden is on interpreting individuals.

The interpretive process for individuals can be divided into three steps: 1) Assimilation, 2) Processing, and 3) Production (or Re-production) of information. First, the individual gathers the information (Assimilation), information that may or may not have been already interpreted and categorized. Second, the individual thinks the information through (thoroughly or not) and may or may not organize the information into new categories. Finally, if steps one and two are accomplished (the information is “understood”) the individual produces the terminal interpretation through a mental note, writing, or a voiced proclamation to other individuals.

Imagine four husbands (A-D) all say to their wives, “I love you; you’re the only one for me.” The wives happen to all be friends with each other, who meet weekly for coffee. Husband A is the model husband—he participates fully with household work (even doing more than his share), takes his wife out for special dinners, and teaches his kids to respect their mother. When he says, “I love you; you’re the only one for me,” he ‘means’ it. Wife A is warmed and comforted by this proclamation and is confident that it is true. She says so at her weekly coffee meeting.

Husband B models all of the same actions that Husband A had, but for whatever reason is unsure of his love for his wife. He shows it in small ways, like passing up on a hug or wanting to end conversations quickly so he can spend more time doing something else. Wife B is aware of this and for whatever reason is content with it. When Husband B says, “I love you; you’re the only one for me,” she is satisfied, thinking “even though it’s not perfect, it won’t get any better.” She tells her friends of her husband’s great love for her.

Husband C has recently cheated on his wife, twice. He does not keep up with his side of the household work, but works long hours outside of the home. But after his last escapades with other women, he has become more thankful and appreciative of the home his wife makes for him. When he says, “I love you; you’re the only one for me,” he also ‘means’ it. Wife C, not knowing of the affairs, is happy to sacrifice herself at home for her hard-working husband. She recognizes the appreciation and gratitude in his declaration, and she says so to her friends at coffee.

Finally, Husband D has been cheating on his wife for three years with another woman. He is in love with the other woman and wishes to live with her, but can’t find a way to make it happen. He too does not keep up with the housework, nor does he do anything special for his wife. When he says, “I love you; you’re the only one for me,” he is just trying to maintain stability. Wife D knows this (but she does not know about the affair), but she also thinks “it’s not perfect, but it’s pretty normal, I guess.” She tells her friends also that her husband loves her very much, even though she slightly envies the other three.

How is it that Wives A-D come from separate, complex situations, but eventually all have the production of “interpretations” of their husbands declarations? They did not have enough information in the assimilating process (know their husbands deep thoughts, nor their affairs) and their desire for their husbands words to be true strongly influenced the processing of the assimilated process. One may say, “that’s just women,” but I say, “no, that’s humans.” That’s how all individual interpreters act in the interpretive process. One hopes to assimilate as much true information as possible, and one tries not to impose one’s desires on the “truth” of that information, but like the copier, the production of information is rarely (dare I say never) an exact replication of the “original” information. Furthermore, the final production of the interpretation is often built into its own rhetorical context, as was the case with Wife D. Even though she did not fully believe her husband’s proclamation, her final production was still the same as the others. Her desire to speak the truth into being and not to be embarrassed in front of her friends weighed in on her final production of her interpretation.

"THE COAT IS RED" II: Community 'Determined' Meaning

I’d like to begin by looking forward for a moment. As a biblical scholar, I am looking for meaning in the Bible. But especially as a scholar, I am responsible for looking at the ways in which humans find and make meaning—it is often a combination of finding and making. This series of blogs is not an attempt to show how to find meaning in the Bible; instead, it is an attempt to investigate the process in which communities of human agents “determine” meaning in the Bible. If everyone were to conclude the same meaning from the same passage, then this would not be an issue. But as history has shown, this is not the case. Rather than accuse a group or groups of being biased, I find that it is more the case that everyone brings their own biases to the text. I will show this, continuing to use our statement, “The coat is red.” (TCIR)


In the previous post, I showed how the initial context of TCIR determined its meaning for its original author and, most likely in this case, for its original audience. But now let us assume that the initial context of TCIR is lost, in whole or in part, to a present audience. My example will be short and simple, placed in a vacuum where other factors that play upon interpreters are absent. Let us take three professors: the Socialist, the Scientist, and the Artist. They are asked to determine the meaning of a certain piece of manuscript for their University. My aim is to show how the students of the University come to understand TCIR.


Unfortunately for our professors, the manuscript has been burned and all that remains is one sentence:


“Even though the people claim, ‘The coat is red,’ we must hold firm to that which we know and honor our principles with integrity.”


Our professors have managed to date the burned piece to the 1960’s, but beyond that there is no conclusive evidence to determine the intitial context of the TCIR event.


First, the Socialist, as he researches other occurences of TCIR around the same approximate time, he discovers a few examples of TCIR in an initiation phrase for a secret communist sect. He presents his evidence to the University, and claims that this is a manuscript from a person in power, local or national, who was attempting to suppress the communist sect. One may think that the Socialist is guided simply by his own socialist agenda when he makes such a conclusion, but it is more than that. As he is a professor of political science, this was the main research that was available to him, and there was little chance that he could have made any other discovery.


Next, the Scientist shakes her head at the Socialist, because she feels that the Socialist’s conclusion was too narrow in his research, too localized to one specific region. The Scientist, having researched her data, discovers that in five different regions across the United States in the 1960’s that a species of beavers experienced a change in their coat fur from brown to auburn. In her presentation to the University, she concludes that a group in power was suppressing an environmentalist group who were trying to stem the growth of a certain chemical industry. Note: both the environmentalist group and the communist sect were presented as victims. Also, like the Socialist, the Scientist is guided both by her political interests and her limitations in research.


Finally, the Artist shakes her head. After having completed her research, she concludes that there is nothing in the manuscript piece that can be associated with a political group. The initial TCIR event could point to something as benign as a group of art historians debating the original hue of a certain paint. In her presentation she says,


“The popular opinion could have been that the paint was red, but the art historians knew that the color was either different or more complicated than simple red. My bottom line is this: there’s simply not enough evidence to determine the original intent of TCIR.”


While we may think that the Artist has spoken the truth, the Socialist and the Scientist rightly point out that an apolitical stance on a possibly politcal issue, is still a political stance. The Artist was guided both by her disdain for politics and the limitations of her research.


These anecdotes are over-simplified for sure, but my concern in this post is how the students of the university react and determine meaning for the university. One can imagine this possible scenario:


Once all three different conclusions have been presented, the University becomes swept up in the debate, with different student groups siding with different professors. Some side with a professor, because of their own political ideologies, others side with a professor because a good relationship with that professor is good for their future, and yet others still side with a professor because their friends sided with the same professor. A minute percentage of the student population believes in one conclusion because they believe that interpretation to be true (although they are equally guided by their biases and limited information as were our professors).


Soon, the Socialist and Scientist groups dub the Artist group, “Anarchists.” The Socialist and the Artist groups dub the Scientist group, “Lifeless Data-lovers.” Likewise, the Scientist and Artist groups label the Socialist group, “Stalinists.” The purpose of such statements is not to describe a certain group, but to discredit the ethos of their interpretations.


In the same year, a new President of the University is elected. He praises the University’s science department and asserts that they are at the top in technology and rational human thought, “They are everything an Academy should be.” He restructures the University budget increasing funding for the Science department and decreasing it for others. As the Science department grows and other departments shrink, the research and opinions of the Science department gain significant weight in Academic debate. Soon, the majority of students at the University believe TCIR to be a reference to an environmental crisis and the University puts more money into solving environmental problems. Other interpretations of TCIR are marginalized, and some even to the brink of Academic heresy.

THE COAT IS RED

The context of texts is an abstraction that can easily fall into the abyss of academic theory (and often has), but I think it is important for interpreters of texts (esp. Christians reading the Bible) to understand how this works in real life. My friend’s formula is this: “Texts are bound by Context, but Context is boundless.” This does not mean that every Text (or Symbol) has an infinite number meanings, but rather, every Text has unlimited possibilities for meaning. Absolute meaning is not removed from the universe, nor from the Bible, but it is placed outside the grasp of human reason. Once when I tried to explain the unlimited possibilities of a text, someone posed the statement, “THE COAT IS RED” to question my hypothesis. At the time, I felt my answer was inadequate, so this is my second chance to explain the human endeavor of interpreting texts and their contexts.

THE COAT IS RED (TCIR)

At first glance it seems to be a simple enough statement of fact, as long as one assumes that humans perceive colors in the same way. In fact, TCIR can cover a broad spectrum of meanings from an example in an English grammar book to a code phrase between spies. Both of these examples show that such a statement is arbitrary in meaning, but “arbitrariness” sinks more towards the abyss of theory than helping us connect its range of meanings to the experienced world. It is better to think of texts and language as events—events that occur within different social/economic/political structures that are never static, events within a specific, fluid context. Let’s imagine these contexts to show TCIR’s range of meaning.

The simplest context where meaning occurs is in categories—categories made by different cultures and sub-cultures. In our statement, THE COAT IS RED, we can point out at least two categories: one for COAT and one for RED. It is easy to see the problem in discourse.

A: The coat is red.

B: That’s not a coat, that’s a jacket. (Or blazer, or kimono, etc.)

OR

A: The coat is red.

B: That’s not red, that’s pink. (Or maroon, or scarlet, etc.)

For the one who has spent time in a different culture, learning a different language, it will become evident that different cultures categorize things differently. Indeed, it was my experience while in Korea that outer garments and colors were categorized differently than how I learned them. Incidentally, this is a problem that Bible translator’s face when trying to represent the Hebrew or Greek (but more on this later).

The previous discourse was a relatively benign one, with very little at stake for divergent meanings. But let’s try to imagine a political/economic context where the meaning of TCIR will carry more weight. Imagine that A&B are in 1775 New England.

A: What color is his coat?

B: The coat is red.

A: A Red Coat! That traitor!

The “basic meaning of TCIR” is that an outer garment is a certain color, and that is socially agreed upon. But in this context the meaning is more than its “basic meaning.” TCIR’s meaning is wrapped up in the political/economic struggle of the Revolutionary War, and it could mean life or death for A, B, or the one with the Red Coat.

But now, to make things more complicated, expand the meaning of Coat and Red, and the interpreter will be greeted with a host of different meanings. Coat could refer to a coat of arms, animal fur, or a layer of paint, rather than an outer garment. Likewise, Red could refer to a communist entity or a symbol of anger. In a certain social/political context, TCIR could be referring to a chemical waste crisis where an animal with brown fur has had its fur turn to red. Similarly, it could be a ritual initiation phrase for someone being inducted into a secret communist sect. The event of the phrase determines (in part) its meaning, and each event of TCIR is unique.

We are moving towards biblical examples, but we are not ready yet. We have seen how the phrase’s initial context significantly constructs its understanding for the interpreter. Unfortunately, for many texts the initial context is either unknowable or knowable only in part to the reader. The interpreter has to attempt to grasp the initial context as is possible, but the interpreter is guided by more than the initial context, namely in the form of preconceived ideas and personal biases based in human desire. We will come to this, shortly.

Fixed Texts

In my American context, “fixed” texts have provided authority over many people’s lives, namely the Bible and the Constitution. Like many I have kept the odd eye on the Sotomayor hearings, and the questions posed to her by various senators. In particular are questions probing whether or not Sotomayor will interpret the Constitution the way that it has been interpreted in the past, or “traditionally.” In fact, I am surprised by the underlying thinking of some of the senators, seemingly unaware of philosophical and literary developments over the past century. On another occasion, I was in a study group for my Ph.D. qualifying exams discussing feminist criticism of the Bible. There was a voice here that wished to get rid of certain biblical text because they were too oppressive to women. In both cases, there are underlying assumptions of the fixed meaning in texts that guide the lives of many.

Let me illustrate my point by pointing out a problem in the development of Protestant biblical interpretation. In the 16^th century, Martin Luther attempted to reform the Western church with Sola Scriptura. The problem as he saw it was that Church Doctrine allowed too much for the abuse of power because Church authority was based upon Tradition and Scripture. The Tradition of the Church was long and growing, particularly in regard to the precedents of Canon Law (not unlike our Constitutional Law). The subjectivity of such Traditions were made secondary to Scripture by Luther, because the Scriptures could not grow or change—they were “fixed.” Luther said, "I do not wish to boast that I am more learned than all, but that scripture alone should reign, nor do I pretend that it is to be interpreted by my spirit or that of other men. But I wish to understand it by its spirit." By this singular spirit of scripture, Luther’s church found its authority.

But modern linguistics, philisophy, and literary theory has showed us that meaning is not entirely within a text, but that both the author and reader and their previous experiences add to any certain meaning. In other words, meaning is contextual. I am not arguing that the universe is meaningless nor that there is no absolute truth, but that meaning and “truth” are always viewed through the lenses of certain contexts. I have little room to make such an argument here, but the works of Derrida and Foucault, as well as postcolonial theorists, would be a good place to start. The result is that Luther missed a significant problem with texts: they are equally subject to the problems of interpretation as the Church Traditions were. Texts always must be interpreted. Period. That interpretation is a subjective process, and therefore causes differences in the understanding. If you don’t believe me just look at the number of denominations that have split because of differences in biblical interpretation or the divide in constitutional interpretation between different political factions. The texts are not solid, but they are places to begin conversations.

An argument for a more “original” interpretation of texts is subject to the same problems that Luther recognized in the the interpretation in Church Traditions. Searches for a more original anything are bound to the same problems of interpretation that any text or any law is bound by. Therefore, texts should be the starting place and guidelines for conversations. But that conversation should not be wasted (as it has been in the Sotomayor hearings) by arguing that one should follow a previous reading of a text, but rather, we should take the opportunity to dicuss which interpretive lenses will be appropriate for our context, together.