The Ethics of Interpreting the Bible

In the UK we quite frequently differentiate between being political and Political. The latter meaning party politics. In my opinion the church generally has moved towards being more comfortable with the idea of political comment, indeed in some Churches it would be quite normal. In very many others you would need to be very careful indeed.

One example would be the Jubillee campaign for debt relief for poorer countries, that had widespread support in many UK churches.

Again in the UK I think it is fair to say there is a significant difference between the established church (Church of England) and the free Churches in their understanding of what is the norm in this sphere.

I also think that we would tend to use language about interpreting in the light of the social context rather than interpreting politically. The idea of a political intrepretation seems to imply something narrower about the way society is structured and administered.

Another issue relates to the focus of our society on individualism started during the Thatcher years, that made "political" interpretation less popular but we have been moving away from that to understandings of inter-connectedness where political interpretation makes more sense.

Finally, I would also want to think about the politics involved in the text that has become scripture. eg Matthew was writing in a particular political climate in terms of relationships between Jews and Christians.

I have persistent doubts about our capacity to resolve interpretive problems by diligent self-awareness. Do we suppose that the most dreadful misinterpretations in our history came about because people neglected to be as self-aware as they could? At what point would a reader have attained that appropriate degree of self-critical awareness that she or he would renounce slavery, for instance?

I’m firmly in favor of self-examination and critically testing our interpretations — I just don’t think it necessarily gets us past the problems toward which Schüssler Fiorenza points us. When we disagree about interpretations, we aren’t simply in a position where one of us is insufficiently self-aware and the other is self-aware. Rather, I would argue, self-awareness and interpretation go together in ways that will always elude our efforts to plumb, so that we’ll never attain that position of self-knowledge that justifies the politics of our interpretations.

Am I making sense here?

I suppose the short way of saying it would be, “Are these interpretations on which we’d stake our integrity?” If we’ve done what we take to be our level best to reckon with the text, and we’re expoounding the text in accordance with the dictates of our conscience, I’m not sure who’s in a position to stand in judgment over our interpretation.

I much appreciate these articles as I embark on my Master of Theo studies at Regis Coll Toronto

The words of truth are always paradoxical.